PRAGMALINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERROGATIVE SPEECH ACTS (ON DATA OF AMERICAN ENGLISH)
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2018-4-65-69
The article discusses pragmalinguistic peculiarities of interrogatives. These characteristics are analyzed at comparing interrogatives to other speech acts. Interrogatives as speech acts have an illocutionary force and a perlocutionary effect similar to those of directive speech acts. The illocutionary force of interrogatives is connected with communicative manipulation when asking for or checking information by referring to another person. The perlocutionary effect of interrogatives is either this person agrees or does not agree to share information. Directive speech acts are also connected with communicative manipulation and the perlocutionary effect of directive speech acts is either the other person agrees or does not agree to fulfill the action. However, interrogatives differ from other speech acts (directive speech acts including) by their locutionary and propositional characteristics. Interrogatives are constructed in a special way and do not contain reference to the answer. At least these locutionary and propositional characteristics of interrogatives makes it possible to consider interrogatives as a separate group of speech acts. Analysis of interrogative speech acts in contemporary American films show that 70 % of interrogatives are used as direct speech acts, i.e. to ask for information or to check information. One fourth of interrogatives contains second illocutions, in most cases these are reproach, indignation and pleading. Interrogatives as indirect speech acts are used in 20 % of utterances mainly to express suggestions. Rhetorical (false) questions are used only in 10 % of interrogative utterances.
Keywords: pragmalinguistics, speech acts, interrogatives, American English
References:
1. Wunderlich D. On Problems of Speech Act Theory. Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics. Ed. by R.E. Butts & J. Hintikka. London, Ontario, Boston, etc.: D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1977. Part Three of the Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. P. 243–258.
2. Searle J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theories of Speech Acts. Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 187 p.
3. Searle J. R. Klassifikatsiya illokutivnykh aktov [Classification of Illocutionary Acts]. Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike [New Findings in Foreign Linguistics]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1986. vol. XVII. Speech Act Theory. pp. 170–187 (in Russian).
4. Naumova M. V. Interrogativnyy dialog: na materiale angliyskogo yazyka. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Interrogative dialogue: on data of English. Dis. cand. philol. sci.]. Belgorod, 2005. 130 p. (in Russian).
5. Maslova A. Yu. Kommunikativno-sematicheskaya kategoriya pobuditel’nosti i eye realizatsiya v slavyanskikh yazykakh (na materiale serbskogo i bolgarskogo yazykov v sopostavlyenii s russkim. Dis. dok. filol. nauk [The Communicative and semantic category of inducement and its manifestation in Slavonic languages (on data of Serbian and Bulgarian with comparison to Russian). Diss. doc. philol. sci.]. Saint Petersburg, 2009. 554 p. (in Russian).
6. Simonova S. O. Kommunikativno-kognitivnye osobennosti vyrazheniya kosvennykh i implitsitnykh rechevykh aktov otkaza v dialogicheskom diskurse. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Communicative and cognitive peculiarities of manifestation of indirect and implicit speech acts of refusals in the discourse of dialogues. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Tambov, 2011. 207 p. (in Russian).
7. Tsvetkov O. Yu. Kommunikativnaya sreda pobuditel’nogo vyskazyvaniya: na materiale angliyskogo yazyka. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [The communicative environment of a directive utterance: on data of English. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Cherepovets, 2002. 181 p. (in Russian).
8. Petrova E. B. Kosvennye sredstva vyrazheniya reaktivnogo soveta (na materiale russkoy i amerikanskoy sotsyokul’tur) [Indirect means of expressing pre-sequenced advice (data: Russian and American socio-cultures)]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2013, no. 10 (138), pp. 47–53 (in Russian).
9. Searle J. R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 203 p.
10. Habermas J., Luhmann. N. Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung? Deutschland: Frankfurt-am-Main, 1971. 400 S.
11. Habermas J. Moral’noye soznaniye i kommunikativnoye deystviye [Moral awareness and communicative acts]. Saint Petersburg, 2003. 380 p. (in Russian).
12. Austin J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962. 169 p.
13. Pocheptsov G. G. Pragmatika teksta [Pragmatics of the text]. Kommunikativo-pragmaticheskiye i semanticheskiye funktsii rechevykh edinstv [Communicative, pragmatic and semantic functions of speech units]. Kalinin, Kalinin State University Publ., 1980. pp. 8–20 (in Russian).
14. Teplyakova E. K. Kommunikativnye neudachi pri realizatsii rechevykh aktov pobuzhdeniya v dialogicheskom diskurse: na material sovremennogo nemetskogo yazyka. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Communicative failures at manifestation of directive speech acts in the discourse of dialogues: on data of modern German. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Tambov, 1998. 157 p. (in Russian).
15. Peshkovsky A. M. Russkiy sintaksis v nauchnom osveschenii [Russian syntax from scientific point of view]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur Publ., 2001. 510 p. (in Russian).
16. Yanko T. E. Intonatsionnye strategii russkoy rechi v sopostavitel’nom aspekte [Intonation strategies of Russian speech in comparative aspect]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur Publ., 2008. 312 p. (in Russian).
17. Khidesheli E. P. Funktsii kommunikativnykh tipov predlozheniya v sovremennom angliyskom yazyke. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Functions of communicative types of sentences in modern English. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Pyatigorsk, 2003. 177 p. (in Russian).
18. Conrad R. Voprositel’nye predlozheniya kak kosvennye rechevye akty [Interrogatives as indirect speech acts]. Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike [New Findings in Foreign Linguistics]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1986. vol. XVII. Speech Act Theory. Pp. 349–383 (in Russian).
19. KIl’mukhametova E. Yu. Ritoricheskiye voprosy kak kosvennye rechevye akty (na materiale frantsuzskogo yazyka) [Rhetorical questions as indirect speech acts (on data of French)]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2006, no. 4 (55), pp. 77–82 (in Russian).
Issue: 4, 2018
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: GERMANIC LANGUAGES
Pages: 65 — 69
Downloads: 932