Cover Page

Cite item


The definition of the term “language game” stays an actual problem of linguistics, as the term essence was not clearly revealed under the first usage at E.A. Zemskaya’s researches, where the phenomenon had got an aesthetic interpretation appealed to the poetic function of language. Contemporary science treat facts of language game as comic ones. Simultaneously language game researches are based on texts material, whereas speech aspect need a careful examining. In this case, there is a dining material texts in the study of this phenomenon, although the roar of the variant of the phenomenon also requires study. The article proposes the use of pragmatic options for a living material spontaneous speech with the aim of delineating the actual game pieces and the creative category. Records of a live speech of inhabitants of St. crimes from cards of chair of the Russian, Slavic and General linguistics Trick of Academy of the Crimean Federal University act as a material. The material is subjected to discourse, word-formation and semantic analysis. Shot polonium research opposes the fate and referent (cognitive) functions of the language. Highlight the statements about the provence in the flow is subject to consultation and actions between messages. At the same time, there is a nerve distribution of the load distribution on each of the components of the act. The playful nature of some of the units reduces informative statements, customize discuss around the contact rather than the message, as that implies a static criterion in determining the language game. During interaction about the type of the participants orally by means of neural realist objectives: empathy is to share state of the opponent, to emphasize the closeness of the relationship, to establish contact with a stranger, to make him communication. This type of organization discuss attests to the special specificity of the preferential component statements containing the standard receive units. Calms these units with a daily does not sort to the direct preferential individual character sum, but is set indirectly - through discourse descriptors indicating the purpose of the action and the ways of its implementation. Analysis of preferential specific rev units grow character to demonstrate a relic of the degree of correlation of intra-factors discuss organization extras and that allowed to draw a conclusion about the Orient of the scope of the terminal “language game” facts fate of Provence.

About the authors

Natalia Yurievna Timofeeva

V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University

Author for correspondence.

post-graduated student of the Department of Russian, Slavic and General Linguistics at V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University; scientific interests: sociolinguistics, speech communication, pragmalinguistics

pr. Vernadskogo 4, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, Russia, 295007


  1. Zemskaуa, E.A., Kitaigorodskaya, M.V., Rozanova, N.N. (1983). Language game. In Russian Colloquial Speech. Moscow, 172—214. (In Russ.).
  2. Nuhov, S.Zh. (1997). Language game in derivation: jn the base of English language [dissertation]. Moscow. (In Russ.).
  3. Sannikov, V.Z. (1999). Russian in the mirror of languge game. Moscow: Shkola “Yazyki russkoj kul'tury” publ. (In Russ.).
  4. Gridina, T.A. (1996). Language game: stereotype and creation. Ekaterinburg: Nauka publ. (In Russ.).
  5. Il'yasova, S.V., Amiri, L.P. (2015). Language game in communicative area of mass-media. M.: Nauka, Flinta. publ. (In Russ.).
  6. Lebedeva, E.B. (2014). Clarification to the term “language game” in linguistics. Yazyk i Kul'tura, 4, 48—63. (In Russ.).
  7. Kargapolova, I.A. (2007). “Language game” in lexicographic and scientific aspects: conceptual-methodological analysis. IZVESTIA: Herzen University Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 9 (47), 44—53. (In Russ.).
  8. Linguistics of creation-2. (2012). Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedogogical Institute Publ. (In Russ.).
  9. Konovalova, Yu. O. (2008). Language game in modern Russian colloquial speech. Vladivostok: VGUES publ. (In Russ.).
  10. Petrov, A.V. (2017). Realization of Creative Potential in Colloquial Speech of Creamian inhabitants. In Modern World-View: Vol. 1. Simferopol', 45—68. (In Russ.).
  11. Yakobson, R.O. (1975). Linguistics and Poetics. In Strukturalizm: pro and contra. Moscow: Progress publ., 193—231. (In Russ.).
  12. Searle, J.R. (2010). What is a Speech Act? In The Philosophy of Language: edited by J.R. Searle. Moscow: Editorial URSS publ., 56—75. (In Russ.).
  13. Norman, B.Yu. (2011). Speaker’s grammatics: from idea to utterance. Moscow: “LIBROKOM” publ. (In Russ.).
  14. Klujev, E.V. (2002). Speech Communication. Moscow: RIPOL CLASSIC publ. (In Russ.).
  15. Vinokur, T.G (1993). Information and fatic speech as the expression of communicative intentions of speaker. In Russian Language in its Function: Communicative-Pragmatic Aspect. Moscow: Nauka publ., 5—29. (In Russ.).
  16. Allen, J.F. and Perrault C.R. (1986). Analyzing Intention in Utterances. In News of West Linguistics. Vol. 17. Teoriya Rechevykh Aktov. Moscow: Progress publ., 322—362. (In Russ.)
  17. Paducheva, E.V. (1985). Utterance and its Reference. Moscow: Nauka publ. (In Russ.).
  18. Vinokur, T.G. (1993). Speaker and Hearer: Variants of Speech Behavior. Moscow: Nauka publ. (In Russ.).
  19. Vinokur, T.G. (2009). Regularities of Stylistic Usage of Language Units. Moscow: “LIBROKOM” publ. (In Russ.).
  20. Radbil’, T.B. Language anomaly in art text: Anrej Platonov and others. Moscow: Flinta publ. (In Russ.).
  21. Fassold, Ralf W. & Preston Dennis R. (2007). The Psychological Unity of Inherent Variability: Old Occam Whips out His Rasor. In Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, Methods and Appications. New York: Cambridge University Press., 45—69.
  22. Bogdanovich, G.Yu. (2017). Once more about text, discourse and world-viewin polylingual situation. In Modern World-View: Vol. 1. Simferopol', 12—31. (In Russ.).
  23. Jakubinskij, L.P. (1986). About dialogic speech. In: Selected Works. Language and its Function. Moscow, 17—58. (In Russ.).
  24. Benveniste Emile. (1974). The Formal Apparatus of Enancuation. In: General Linguistics. Moscow: Progress publ. 311—319. (In Russ.).
  25. Shmeljov, A.D. (2002). Russian Language and Extralinguistic Reality. Moscow: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kul'tury publ. (In Russ.).
  26. Martinet, A. (2006). Mechanism of Phonetic Changes: Problems of Diahronic Phonology. Moscow: URSS publ.
  27. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. publ.
  28. Lakoff G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago—London: University of Chicago Press.
  29. Grice, H. Paul (1985). Logic and Conversation. In News of West Linguistics.Vol. 17. Linguistic Pragmatics. Moscow: Progress publ., 217—237. (In Russ.).
  30. Budagov, A.R. (1976). Men and his Language. Moscow: Moscow State University publ.

Copyright (c) 2018 Timofeeva N.Y.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies