Linguacultural aspects of the value and semantic attitude to the speech act of promise in Russian

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

The study develops the speech acts theory in terms of the “condition of sincerity” (Searle 1965). It aims to identify the attitude to the speech act of promise in the Russian communicative culture. The article analyzes the statistically significant consolidation of the value and semantic attitude to the speech act of promise considered as a specific action. The data were drawn from the Russian-language corpus ruTenTen11, provided by the research resource Sketch Engine. The corpus linguistics methods were applied to extract a subcorpus of occurrences of the query “promise” (311,365 occurrences) which was used to identify the value and semantic attitude to it. The results showed that in the Russian language, the speech act of promise is perceived mainly negatively. The word “promise” is fused with the lexical and semantic field of the “empty word”. This contradicts the normatively fixed meanings of the word “promise” itself, as well as the essence of the speech act of promise. The “condition of sincerity” in relation to the speech act of promise is marginalized and becomes meaningless. The study showed that the methods of corpus linguistics open the prospect of clarifying the features of not only modern word usage, but also the linguistic and ethnocultural context of such large groups of statements as speech acts. The article contributes to the theory of speech acts in terms of identifying the essential features of the “common ground” (Clark & Carlson 1982) of the participants in communication, as well as contributing to the development of linguistic axiology. The proposed methods can be used to identify the attitude to other speech acts in Russia and other linguistic communities. The results can be used in teaching Russian as a second language.

作者简介

Marina Zagidullina

Chelyabinsk State University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: marta@csu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4799-1230

Doctor Habil. of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theory of Media at Chelyabinsk State University (Chelyabinsk, Russia). Her research interests include medialinguistics, corpus linguistics, theory of mass communication, media aesthetics, theory of journalism, theory and history of literature.

Chelyabinsk, Russia

Asghar Ghodrati

Allameh Tabataba'i University

Email: asghar_ghodrati@atu.ac.ir
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6803-8211

Assistant Professor of Russian Language and Literature at Allameh Tabataba'i University (Tehran, Iran). His research interests embrace Russian language and philology, as well as teaching Russian as a foreign language.

Tehran, Iran

Maryam Shafaghi

Allameh Tabataba'i University

Email: shafaghi@atu.ac.ir
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0244-0651

Associate Professor of Russian Language and Literature at Allameh Tabataba'i University (Tehran, Iran). Her research interests include Russian language and literature, cultural studies, and teaching Russian as a foreign language.

Tehran, Iran

参考

  1. Антропова В.В., Фёдоров В.В. Верификация ценностных доминант в региональном медиадискурсе: травмирующе-фобический сегмент информационного поля // Гуманитарный вектор. 2021. Т. 16. № 4. С. 158-168. https://doi.org/10.21209/1996-7853-2021-16-4-158-168 [Antropova, Vera V. & Vasily V. Fedorov. 2021. Verifikatsiya tsennostnykh dominant v regional'nom mediadiskurse: travmiruyushche-fobicheskiy segment informatsionnogo polya. (Verification of value dominants in the regional media discourse: Traumatic phobic segment of the information field). Humanity Vector 16 (4). 158-168. (In Russ.)].
  2. Асланов И.А. Метафорический фрейминг в медиатекстах и коммуникации о депрессии: результаты контент-анализа и эксперимента // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10: Журналистика. 2020. № 6. С. 3-22. https://doi.org/10.30547/vestnik.journ.6.2020.322 [Aslanov, Ivan A. 2020. Metaforicheskiy freyming v mediatekstakh i kommunikatsii o depressii: rezul'taty kontent-analiza i eksperimenta (Metaphorical framing in media texts and communication about depression: Results of content analysis and experiment). The Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 10: Journalism 6. 3-22. (In Russ.)].
  3. Байрамова Л.К. Семантическая амбивалентность аксиологической фразеологии // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2017. T. 52. № 3. С. 121-127. https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2017-3-121-127 [Bairamova, Luiza K. 2017. Semanticheskaya ambivalentnost' aksiologicheskoy frazeologii (Semantic ambivalency of axiological phraseology). Issues of Cognitive Linguistics 3 (52). 121-127. (In Russ.)].
  4. Богданова Л.И. Культурные параметры в грамматике для речевых действий // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 19: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2019. № 4. С. 9-18. [Bogdanova, Lyudmila I. 2019. Kul'turnyye parametry v grammatike dlya rechevykh deystviy (Cultural parameters in grammar for speech actions). The Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 19. Linguistics and Cross-Cultural Communication 4. 9-18. (In Russ.)].
  5. Бугрова С.Е., Курышева В.И., Маштакова К.С. Обещание как прагматический феномен в современном английском языке // Теория и практика лингвистического описания разговорной речи. 2016. № 30. С. 49-53. [Bugrova, Svetlana Ye., Valentina I. Kurysheva & Ksenya S. Mashtakova. 2016. Obeshchaniye kak pragmaticheskiy fenomen v sovremennom angliyskom yazyke (Promise speech act as pragmalinguistic phenomenon in modern English). Theory and Practice of Linguistic Description of Colloquial Speech 30. 49-53. (In Russ.)].
  6. Былина Е.Э. Обещание в различных речевых стратегиях // Актуальные вопросы современной филологии и журналистики. 2018. Т. 2. № 29. С. 18-25. [Bylina, Elena E. 2018. Obeshchaniye v razlichnykh rechevykh strategiyakh (Promise in various speech strategies). Topical Issues of Modern Philology and Journalism 2 (29). 18-25 (In Russ.)].
  7. Былина Е.Э. Применение прототипического подхода для анализа речевого акта обещания (на материале современного английского языка) // Вестник Хакасского государственного университета им. Н.Ф. Катанова. 2018а. № 25. С. 51-54. [Bylina, Elena E. 2018. Primeneniye prototipicheskogo podkhoda dlya analiza rechevogo akta obeshchaniya (na materiale sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka) (Application of the prototypical approach to the analysis of the speech act of promise (based on the material of modern English)). Bulletin of the Khakass State University named by N. F. Katanov 25. 51-54. (In Russ.)].
  8. Вальтер Х. Культурологический фон в пословицах-«перевёртышах» // Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры. 2014. T. 3. № 45. С. 42-46. [Walter, Harry. 2014. Kul'turologicheskiy fon v poslovitsakh-«perevortyshakh» (Culturological background in proverbs-“shifters”). Problems of History, Philology, Culture 3 (45). 42-46. (In Russ.)].
  9. Власян Г.Р., Кожухова И.В. Формальные и неформальные приглашения в русском языке: контекст и стратегии вежливости // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2019. Т. 23. № 4. С. 994-1013. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-4-994-1013 [Vlasyan, Gayane R. & Irina V. Kozhukhova. 2019. Formalʹnyye i neformalʹnyye priglasheniya v russkom yazyke: kontekst i strategii vezhlivosti (Formal and informal invitations in Russian: Context and politeness strategies). Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (4). 994-1013 (In Russ.)].
  10. Воейкова А.А. Промисив как коммуникативный тип предложения в русском и американском рекламном тексте // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. Филология. Искусствоведение. 2013. Вып. 83. T. 29. № 320. С. 13-16. [Voyeykova, Anna A. 2013. Promisiv kak kommunikativnyy tip predlozheniya v russkom i amerikanskom reklamnom tekste (Promise as a communicative type of sentence in Russian and American advertising text). Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. Series Philology. Art history 83 (29). 13-16. (In Russ.)].
  11. Гиматова Л.И. Семантическая классификация субстантивов лексико-семантического поля ‘intellekt’ (интеллект) в романе Г. Гессе «Игра в бисер» и его переводах на русский язык // Ученые записки Казанского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2018. Т. 160. № 5. С. 1109-1121. [Gimatova, Luiza I. 2018. Semanticheskaya klassifikatsiya substantivov leksiko-semanticheskogo polya ‘intellekt’ (intellekt) v romane G. Gesse "Igra v biser" i yego perevodakh na russkiy yazyk (Semantic classification of substantives of the lexical-semantic field "intellekt" in H. Hesse’s novel “The glass bead game” and its translation into the Russian language). Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki 160 (5). 1109-1121. (In Russ.)].
  12. Дементьев В.В. Снова о «жанрах речи и языке речи»: что дала жанроведению лингвистика? // Жанры речи. 2022. T. 1. № 33. С. 6-20. https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2022-17-1-33-6-20 [Dementiev, Vadim V. 2022. Snova o «zhanrakh rechi i yazyke rechi»: chto dala zhanrovedeniyu lingvistika? (Again about “genres of speech and the language of speech”: What did linguistics give genre studies?). Speech Genres 1 (33). 6-20. (In Russ.)].
  13. Демьянков В.З. О двойных рубежах между мнениями и реальностями в русском дискурсе // Когнитивные исследования языка. 2021. T. 2. № 45. С. 44-57. [Demyankov, Valery Z. 2021. O dvoynykh rubezhakh mezhdu mneniyami i real'nostyami v russkom diskurse (On the double frontiers between opinions and realities in Russian discourse). Cognitive Language Research 2 (45). 44-57. (In Russ.)].
  14. Захаров В.П. Функциональность инструментов корпусной лингвистики // Труды международной конференции по компьютерной и когнитивной лингвистике TEL-2018. В 2 т. Т. 2. Казань : Изд-во Академии наук РТ, 2018. С. 164-180. [Zakharov, Viktor P. 2018. Funktsional'nost' instrumentov korpusnoy lingvistiki (Functionality of corpus linguistics tools). Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational and Cognitive Linguistics TEL-2018. In 2 volumes. Vol. 2. 164-180. Kazan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan (In Russ.)].
  15. Колоколова Н.М. Профессиональная и терминологическая лексика в институциональных маскулинных промиссивах в английском, немецком и русском языках // Гуманитарные исследования. 2012. T. 2. № 42. С. 92-96. [Kolokolova, Natalya M. 2012. Professional'naya i terminologicheskaya leksika v institutsional'nykh maskulinnykh promissivakh v angliyskom, nemetskom i russkom yazykakh (Professional and terminological vocabulary in institutional masculine promises in English, German and Russian). Humanities Studies 2 (45). 92-96. (In Russ.)].
  16. Королевич С.А. Архаизация русских пословиц: некоторые факторы и причины // Беларуска-руска-польскае супастаўляльнае мовазнаўства, літаратуразнаўства, культуралогія : зборнік навуковых артыкулаў; пад навук. рэд. Г.М. Мезенка. Віцебск : ВДУ імя П. М. Машэрава, 2013. С. 150-152. [Korolevych, Stanislava A. 2013. Arkhaizatsiya russkikh poslovits: nekotorye faktory i printsipy (Archaization of Russian proverbs: Some factors and reasons). In G. M. Mezenok (ed.), Belarusian-Russian-Polish comparative linguistics, literary studies, cultural studies, 150-152. Vitebsk: P. M. Masherov State University. (In Russ.)].
  17. Ларина Т.В. Англичане и русские: Язык, культура, коммуникация. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2013. [Larina, Tatiana V. 2013. Anglichane i russkie: Yazyk, kul'tura, kommunikatsiya. (The English and the Russians: Language, Culture, and Communication). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur Publ. (In Russ.)].
  18. Леонтович О.А. Позитивная коммуникация: постановка проблемы // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2015. № 1. C. 164-177. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-9411 [Leontovich, Olga A. 2015. Pozitivnaya kommunikatsiya: postanovka problemy (Positive communication: A theoretical perspective). Russian Journal of Linguistics 1. 164-177. (In Russ.)].
  19. Леонтович О.А. Позитивная личность: коммуникативные особенности и поведенческие характеристики // Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. 2019. T. 1. № 134. С. 178-184. [Leontovich, Olga A. 2019. Pozitivnaya lichnost': kommunikativnyye osobennosti i povedencheskiye kharakteristiki (Positive personality: Communicative features and behavioral characteristics). Izvestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University 1 (134). 178-184. (In Russ.)].
  20. Общая и русская лингвоаксиология: коллективная монография / М.С. Милованова (отв. ред.), К.Я. Сигал, В.И. Карасик [и др.]. М. : ИЯзРАН ; Ярославль : Канцлер, 2022. [Obshchaya i russkaya lingvoaksiologiya (General and Russian linguoaxiology: Collective monograph). 2022. In Maria S. Milovanova (ed.), Moscow : IYAzRAN ; Yaroslavl' : Kantsler (In Russ.).
  21. Прохоров Ю.Е., Стернин И.А. Русские: коммуникативное поведение. М.: Флинта, 2016 [Prohorov, Jury E. & Iosif A. Sternin. 2016. Russkie: kommunikativnoe povedenie. (Russians: Communicative behaviour). Moscow: Flinta Publ. (In Russ.)].
  22. Синельникова Л.Н. Речевой акт: от обязательного минимума к дискурсивному максимуму // Ученые записки Крымского федерального университета имени В.И. Вернадского. Филологические науки. 2019. Т. 5 (71). № 3. С. 187-211. [Sinelnikova, Lara N. 2019. Rechevoy akt: ot obyazatel'nogo minimuma k diskursivnomu maksimumu (Speech act: From a mandatory minimum to a discursive). Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philological Sciences 5 (71) 3. 187-211. (In Russ.)].
  23. Слышкин Г.Г. Лингвокультурные концепты и метаконцепты: монография. Волгоград: Перемена, 2004. [Slyshkin, Gennadyj G. 2004. Lingvokul'turnyye kontsepty i metakontsepty (Linguistic and cultural concepts and metaconcepts). Volgograd: Peremena Publ. (In Russ.)].
  24. Стернин И.А. Полевые структуры в системе языка. Воронеж : Изд-во ВГУ, 1989. [Sternin, Iosif A. 1989. Polevyye struktury v sisteme yazyka (Field structures in the language system). Voronezh: VSU Publ. (In Russ.)].
  25. Тиллоева С.М. Понятийный аспект структуры семантического поля: на материале персидского и русского языков. Екатеринбург: Уральский государственный педагогический университет, 2021. [Tilloeva, Saodat M. 2021. Ponyatiynyy aspekt struktury semanticheskogo polya: na materiale persidskogo i russkogo yazykov (Conceptual aspect of the structure of the semantic field: On the material of the Persian and Russian languages). Yekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University Publ. (In Russ.)].
  26. Хавронина С.А., Митрофанова О.Д. Этнометодика как одно из перспективных направлений преподавания РКИ // Уроки русской словесности: сборник научных трудов / под ред. Л.А. Константиновой. Тула; Москва: Тульский государственный университет, 2017. С. 72-73. [Khavronina, Serafima A. & Olga D. Mitrofanova. 2017. Etnometodika kak odno iz perspektivnykh napravleniy prepodavaniya RKI (Ethnomethodology as one of the promising areas of teaching Russian as a foreign language). Lessons of Russian literature: A collection of scientific papers. In Ludmila A. Konstantinova (ed.). Tula; Moscow: Tula State University Publ. (In Russ.)].
  27. Хлебда В. Пословицы советского народа. Наброски к будущему анализу // Русистика. Берлин, 1994. № 1/2. С. 74-84. [Chlebda, Wojciech. 1994. Poslovitsy sovetskogo naroda. Nabroski k budushchemu analizu (Proverbs of the Soviet people. Sketches for future analysis). Rusistika 1/2. 74-84. (In Russ.)].
  28. Чесноков И.И., Чеснокова П. Аксиологические параметры речевого акта «клятва» в русской и чешской лингвокультурах // Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. 2017. T. 6. № 119. С. 110-115. [Chesnokov, Ivan I. & Petra Chesnokova. 2017. Aksiologicheskiye parametry rechevogo akta “klyatva” v russkoy i cheshskoy lingvokul’turakh (Axiological parameters of the speech act “oath” in Russian and Czech linguistic cultures). Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta 6 (119). 110-115. (In Russ.)].
  29. Чилингарян К.П. Корпусная лингвистика: теория vs методология // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Теория языка. Семиотика. Семантика. 2021. Т. 12. № 1. С. 196-218 [Chilingaryan, Kamo P. 2021. Korpusnaya lingvistika: teoriya vs metodologiya (Corpus linguistics: Theory vs methodology). Bulletin of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Theory of language. Semiotics. Semantics 12 (1). 196-218. (In Russ.)].
  30. Шевелева М.С. Идентификация и интерпретация иронии посредством эмотивных маркеров вторичной эмпатии (на материале англоязычного и франкоязычного художественного дискурса) // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2022. T. 15. № 4. С. 1299-1307. [Sheveleva, Marina S. 2022. Identifikatsiya i interpretatsiya ironii posredstvom emotivnykh markerov vtorichnoy empatii (na materiale angloyazychnogo i frankoyazychnogo khudozhestvennogo diskursa) (Identification and interpretation of irony by means of emotive markers of secondary empathy on the example of English and French literary discourse). Philological Sciences. Questions of theory and practice 15 (4). 1299-1307. (In Russ.)].
  31. Abbasi, Zahra & Mahboobeh Bagheri. 2018. The relationship between language attitude and ethnocultural identity components in three generations of Iranian immigrants in Bahrain. Iranian Journal of Sociolinguistics Payame Noor University 2. 9-19. URL: https://sociolinguistics.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_5357_01b6fde858a72b7b44e862705fba11e7.pdf (In Farsi).
  32. Alba-Juez, Laura. 2014. Irony as Inferred Contradiction. Russian Journal of Linguistics 4. 140-153. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-9389
  33. Altahmazi, Thulfiqar H. 2020. Collective pragmatic acting in networked spaces: The case of #activism in Arabic and English Twitter discourse. Lingua 239, 102837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102837
  34. Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  35. Bicchieri, Cristina. 2005. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  36. Clark, Herbert Н. & Thomas В. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58 (2). 332-371.
  37. Deveci, Tanju & Jessica Midraj. 2021. “Can we take a picture with you?” The realization of the refusal speech act with tourists by Emirati speakers. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25 (1). 68-88. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-68-88
  38. Fogal, Daniel, Daniel W. Harris & Matt Moss (eds.). 2018. New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  39. Habib, Allen. 2022. Promises. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition). URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/promises/
  40. Harris, Daniel W. & Rachel A. McKinney 2021. Speech-Act theory. The Routledge Handbook of Social and Political Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge. 70-90.
  41. Haugh, Michael & Wei-Lin M. Chang. 2019. Indexical and sequential properties of criticisms in initial interactions: Implications for examining (Im) politeness across Cultures. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (4). 904-929. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-904-92
  42. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vit Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, & Vit Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1. 7-36.
  43. Koo, Hyun Jung & Seongha Rhee. 2013. “I will do it… but I’m Asking you to do it”: On the Emergence of Polite Imperative from Promissive. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 97. 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.263
  44. Lanigan, Richard L. 1977. Speech Act Phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  45. Larina, Tatiana V. 2015. Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics 7. 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702003
  46. Larina, Tatiana V. & Douglas M. Ponton. 2020. Tact or frankness in English and Russian blind peer reviews. Intercultural Pragmatics 17 (4). 471-496. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-4004.
  47. Larina, Tatiana & Douglas Mark Ponton. 2022. I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face: Emotive (im)politeness and face in the English and Russian blind peer review. Journal Journal of Politeness Research 18 (1). 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0035
  48. Laske, Caroline. 2022. Corpus linguistics: The digital tool kit for analysing language and the law. Comparative Legal History 10 (1). 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2022.2063510
  49. Leech, Geoffrey & Tatiana Larina. 2014. Politeness: West and East. Russian Journal of Linguistics (former Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Linguistics) 4. 9-34.
  50. Ogleznev, Vitaly V. 2019. Is Searlean insincere promise a Speech Act? Filosofiya. Sociologiya 30 (3). 215-223.
  51. Pak, Miok D., Paul Portner & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2008. Agreement in promissive, imperative, and exhortative clauses. Korean Linguistics 14 (1). 157-175.
  52. Reich, Wendelin. 2011. The cooperative nature of communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5). 1349-1365. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.024.
  53. Searle, John R. 1965. What Is a Speech Act? In Maurice Black (ed.), Philosophy in America, 221-240. London: Allen and Unwin.
  54. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Shafaghi, Maryam. 2013. The Speech Act of “Promise” and “Promise in Political Discourse”. Language Related Research 4 (2). 141-158. URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-4455-en.html (In Farsi).
  56. Thompson, Geoff & Laura Alba-Juez (eds). 2014. Evaluation in Context. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, vol. 242. London: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  57. Vahidnia, Farahnaz & Seyed M. R. Hosseini Nia. 2020. The semantics of the word “promise” and its educational implications in the Holy Quran. Educational Doctrines in Quran and Hadith 11. 105-124. URL: http://iued.ilam.ac.ir/article_240019.html?lang=en (In Farsi).

版权所有 © Zagidullina M., Ghodrati A., Shafaghi M., 2023

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##