CC BY
33релшйних шституцш, суспшьних бвд, яш називала партiя (бiднiсть, безробiття, неосвiченiсть, буржуа-зiя), що перетворило металопчний засiб на рiзно-вид деклараций Об'eктивацiя персонаж1в Т. Брези з цих причин завжди бiполярна: е лише правильне комунiстичне та свгт iнших, ворогiв. Полiтична за-ангажовашсть позбавила стилiстику письма Брези особистюних моментiв, об'еднала його великою мь рою iз безособовими, непсихологiзованими оповь дачами без iндивiдуального вираження. Двадцяти-лiтне мовчання м1ж Брезою i Дигатом, як1 на одному подиху творили разом, - найкраще сввдчення розходження iронiчноl iнтенцiйностi та Н природи у митцiв.
Також зазначимо, що проза Тадеуша Брези завжди розрахована на читача-штелектуала, який зда-тен розшифрувати вузьш iронiчнi контексти, захо-ванi найчастше у власних назвах (бiблiйнi та мис-тецьк1 алюзп). Iнтелектуалiзм прози перетворюе культурний код iронil на багатозначний, тож серед можливих трактувань прихованих значень можуть перебувати й п, як1 виходять за меж1 полггично вмотивованих, тобто за рамки, що були запропоно-ванi соцреалiзмом.
Лiтература
1. Болдина, Л. Ирония как вид комического: ав-тореф. дис. канд. филос. наук / Л. Болдина. М., 1982. 24 с.
2. Бреза Т. Бронзовые врата. Римский дневник. М.: Прогрес, 1964. 518 с.
3. Бреза Т. Валтасаров пир. Лабиринт. / Пер с пол., предисл. С. Ларина. М.: Художественная литература, 1976. 614 с.
4. Бреза Т. Листи з Гавани // Всесвгг. №1. 1964. С. 3-11.
5. Бреза Т. Стены Иерихона. Лабиринт: Романы. М.: Радуга, 1985. 480 с.
6. Калита О. Засоби iронil в малш прозг - Ки1в: Видавництво НПУ ím. М. П. Драгоманова, 2013. 238с .
7. Паньков Е.А. Эссе в польской литературе 5060-х годов ХХ века и творчество Тадеуша Брезы. Автореф. на к.ф.н., 10.01.03. Минск, 2003. - 24 с.
8. Хорев В.А. Польская литература ХХ века. 1890-1990. М.: Индрик, 2009. 352 с.
9. Dygat M. Rozstania. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2001. 296p.
10. Maciag W. Droga pisarska Tadeusza Brezy // Pamietnik Literacki. Режим доступу: http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Pamietnik_Litera cki_czasopismo_kwartalne_poswiecone_historii_i_kr ytyce_literatury_polskiej/Pamietnik_Literacki_czasopi smo_kwartalne_poswiecone_historii_i_krytyce_literat ury_polskiej-r1964-t55-
n4/Pamietnik_Literacki_czasopismo_kwartalne_poswi
econe_historii_i_krytyce_literatury_polskiej-r1964-
t55-n4-s453-
468/Pamietnik_Literacki_czasopismo_kwartalne_pos
wiecone_historii_i_krytyce_literatury_polskiej-r1964-
t55-n4-s453-468.pdf
COMMUNICATIVE CATEGORY OF MITIGATION AND POLITENESS
Takhtarova S.
Kazan Federal University
ABSTRACT
The article is devoted to the consideration of the phenomenon of politeness, the analysis of its formal-ritual and individually creative aspects, as well as the determination of the relationship between maxims of politeness and mitigative strategies. The author comes to the conclusion that the category of mitigation is an integral component in the politeness paradigm. Mitigation is interpreted as a communicative category, the main content of which is intentional mitigation strategies aimed at maintaining a communicative balance in interpersonal communication. Politeness is a complex phenomenon that includes a number of more private categories, including mitigation. The study was carried out with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), grant №18 -01200226 A
Keywords: politeness, mitigation, image, communication, culture, speech acts.
Introduction
An interest in politeness as a social and linguistic phenomenon has been clearly manifested recently, it was evidenced by a large number of studies devoted to the study of this phenomenon in both domestic and foreign linguistics (21; 14; 12; 6; 10; 11; 20; 16; 3; 4 and many others). The rules of courtesy that make up the ethical aspect of a communicative act are systematized in the form of maxims, postulates, principles of communication, discursive characteristics of politeness, sit-uational conditioning of polite strategies are studied quite intensively. Such an active attention of linguists to this phenomenon seems quite natural, since the determining condition for the success of any socially determined and interpersonal communication activity is
the observance of ethical standards of communication, among which politeness plays a decisive role in achieving success of interaction. However, despite the quite frequent mention by linguists of this phenomenon in the context of their research, there is still no consensus on the nature of the analyzed phenomenon, which is defined as a concept, category or strategy.
Results and discussion
A great influence on the study of various aspects of politeness was made by the politeness theory of P. Brown and S. Levinson [1], despite the fact that it was repeatedly criticized for attributing a universal character to models based on English language. The politeness theory of P. Brown and S. Levinson was based on the concept of "face", proposed by E. Goffman [8] and
interpreted as a universal concept, a kind of social image, which all communicants are trying to preserve. It is important to note that the communicative image of both interactants is closely interconnected - by showing insufficient respect for the communication partner, causing damage to his image, the addressee thereby also damages his "face", especially "positive" - as his communicative value in the eyes of the interlocutor falls.
It is noted in studies on the communicative aspect of politeness that individual politeness plays a special role in communication along with conventional or ritualized politeness, including speech etiquette. This distinction has particular importance for the mitigation phenomenon analyzed in this work.
So, H. Haferland and I. Paul distinguish three levels of politeness functioning: elementary, codified and reflective politeness [9, p. 51]. Elementary politeness is established by customs and traditions and functions at the level of habitual forms of behavior in everyday communication. Codified politeness determines behavior in certain social situations and is reflected in etiquette or diplomatic protocol. The status and situational characteristics of the course of speech contact are especially important for this type of politeness, which is ceremonial in nature and regulates behavior regardless of the addressee.
Reflective politeness is determined only by the speaker himself in each specific communication situation and combines the forms of elementary and codified politeness. This type of courtesy is also defined as individual politenes - «Ich unterscheide eine konventionelle Höflichkeit mit kontextfreien sprachlichen Mustern, die im Wesentlichen in der Erfüllung gesellschaftlichen Normen und Konventionen besteht, von einer individuellen Höflichkeit mit kontextsensiblen Variationsmustern, die über diese Normen hinausgeht, indem sie Respekt und Wertschätzung ausdrückt» [19, p. 32].
Orientation to the addressee is decisive for reflective politeness. Taking into account the communicative aspects of the latter when choosing speech means that implement the speaker's intentions, the ability to communicative empathy play an important role in achieving the speaker's communication goals, which ultimately determines the effectiveness of speech behavior in situations of cooperative, harmonious communication.
In the works of N.I. Formanovskaya it is also noted the fact that politeness as a nuclear concept includes three varieties: politeness-sincerity, as a respectful attitude to a communication partner, politeness-formality, as the implementation of accepted bypass rules, and politeness-mask as a tactical move while hiding the true attitude to a communication partner [5, p. 129]. The study of the ritual aspect of politeness, especially speech etiquette, is given much more attention. This is probably due to the fact that etiquette strategies and tactics, as well as linguistic means that implement them, are presented, as a rule, explicitly in the structure of utterances, and can be easily analyzed and systematized.
At the same time, we agree with the opinion of those researchers who distinguish in politeness not only the external, formal, but also the internal component,
reflecting the respectful, kind, delicate attitude of the speaking subject to the Other, not only formal observance of the rules, but also sincere attention and interest in relation to others. Despite the fact that the basis of individual politeness is without doubt based on conventional, ritualized rules of interaction, in situations of interpersonal discourse there may be a violation of these rules, which, nevertheless, will be perceived by the interlocutors as quite polite, if we understand politeness as ensuring harmonious, conflict-free communication.
Besides, despite the universality of the basic rules of polite communication, the norms and postulates of verbal behavior turn out to be largely culturally conditioned and bear the imprint of the society in which one or another language functions. Politeness is not a static set of normative rules of communication. Like the norm itself, the politeness that defines the normative behavior in communication varies depending on the time and territorial-cultural affiliation. The problem of studying the linguocultural component of politeness is one of the most relevant in modern linguistics.
The most complete description of the category of politeness, taking into account its communicative, so-cio-ethical, and national-cultural characteristics, is given in a study by T.V. Larina. She defines politeness as a national-specific communicative category, the content of which is a system of ritualized strategies for communicative behavior (linguistic and non-linguistic), aimed at harmonious, conflict-free communication and compliance with socially accepted norms in interactive communication [14, p. 79]. At the same time, politeness is interpreted by the author as the central communicative category, which is cross-cutting and integrates a number of more private categories, such as respect, tact, delicacy and so on [13, p. 166].
SUMMARY
This work shares a similar, "broad" interpretation of politeness, which includes, along with the above phenomena, communicative mitigation, which we understand as a communicative category, the main content of which is intentional mitigation strategies aimed at maintaining a communicative balance in interpersonal communication [18, p. 56]. The term "mitigation" was introduced into pragmatics in 1980 by B. Fraser and was interpreted by him as a process of modifying a speech act aimed at reducing possible unwelcome effects in situations where a speaker's speech behavior can lead to a communicative failure or even conflict [6, p. 341]. Such potential conflict situations include, according to the scientist, situations of refusal in response to the request of the addressee, the request of the speaker himself, as well as situations of criticism of the addressee or objects associated with it.
C. Cuffy defines mitigation as an umbrella category in pragmatics, which includes a wide range of strategies by which the speaker softens the interactional aspects of his speech in order to reduce possible communicative risks [2, p. 40].
In our opinion, the possibility of including the above phenomena in the politeness paradigm is explained by the general pragmatic determinism of the latter, their emphasis on creating a positive atmosphere,
focus on the interlocutor, the community of those pragmatic goals that are achieved by the speaker in communication when referring to certain politeness strategies.
The main maxims of politeness show a clear correlation with communicative mitigation. However, the following politeness maxims appear to be most relevant in terms of mitigation [15, p. 132]:
1) maxim of tact, guided by which, the speaker softens the policy intentions, giving the addressee the opportunity to choose, for example:
Wie wäre es, wenn wir in der Nähe was trinken gehen. Sie haben keine Bleibe, ich kenne keinen Weißwein im Kühlschrank. Das ergänzt sich doch perfekt, oder? (v.Kürthy)
2) maxim of approval obliging the speaker to avoid negative characteristics of the addressee or objects associated with him in communication. If the expression of a negative assessment is the illocutionary force of a given statement, then, following the indicated maxim, the subject of the statement seeks to soften the categorical nature of his assessments, for example:
Also, weißt du, Sascha", setzte ich vorsichtig an. „So richtig toll fand ich dein Demo-CD auch nicht" (Hertz)
3) maxim of modesty, implemented primarily in speech acts containing a positive assessment of those who speak to themselves, because it obliges the addressee to be restrained in expressing self-praise, for example:
„Dabei sollte sie sich freuen, dass ich ihm nicht auch noch auf der Tasche liege - weil ich selbst eine ziemlich erfolgreiche Geschäftsfrau bin" (Bielenstein)
4) maxim of consent (minimize disagreement between yourself and the interlocutor), which determines the mitigation of assertive illocution, giving the possibility of a different opinion, for example:
„Der Mann heißt Georg Makulis", sagte er, „ kein sehr angenehmer Mensch, aber fünfzig Millionen schwer. Ich denke, das ist für dich das Entscheidende" (Fischer)
5) maxim of sympathy (minimize antipathy between yourself and the interlocutor), relevant, first of all, in those situations when the speaker himself is the object of criticism, i.e. in situations of self-criticism, for example:
- Du ... ähm, du findest mich nicht irgendwie blöd, oder? (Keller).
At the same time, it should be noted that the maxims of consent and sympathy are, in our opinion, more general, characteristic for almost any situation of polite, ethically correct behavior. The main intention of the speaker, guided in his behavior (verbal and non-verbal) by the maxim of politeness, is, as is known, to reach agreement with the interlocutor, to create a favorable opinion about himself.
Conclusions
All of the above allows us to conclude that politeness is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that combines various options, conventional and individual-personal, the systematic study of which on the material of various linguistic cultures has undoubted importance, not only theoretical, but also applied, since knowledge
and active ownership of these options is the basis of the formation of the communicative competence of the speaking subject. This can be fully attributed to communicative mitigation, the theoretical and practical study of which can give answers to a wide range of questions regarding polite verbal behavior in situations of both intracultural and intercultural communication.
References
1. Brown P., Levinson St. Politeness. Some Universals in Lanquage Usage. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. - 345 p.
2. Caffi C. Mitigation. - Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. - 342 p.
3. Claus E. Beziehungsgestaltung und Rationalität:eine linguistische Theorie der Höflichkeit. Phil.Diss. Düsseldorf, 2001.
4. Felderer B., Macho T. Höflichkeit bricht den Widerstand. - München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2002.
5. Formanovskaya N.I. Speech interaction: communication and pragmatics. - M.: "IKAR", 2007.
6. Fraser B. Conversational mitigation // Journal of Pragmatics 4. North-Holland, 1980. - P. 341-350.
7. Fraser B., Nolen W. The association of deference with linguistic form // International Journal of the Sociology of Language. - 1981. - 27. - The Hague. - P. 93-109.
8. Goffman E. Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior / by Erving Goffman. - Garden City: Doubleday, 1967. - 270 p.
9. Haferland H., Paul I. Eine Theorie der Höflichkeit./Haferland H/P //Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 52: Themenheft zu Höflichkeit, 1996.
10. Janney R.W., Arndt H. Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact // Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Ed. by R.J. Watts et al. - Berlin; NY.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. -P. 21-42.
11. Kasper G. Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues // Journal of Pragmatics. - 1990. - 14 (2). - P. 193-218.
12. Krylova T.V. Naive-linguistic notions of politeness and their vocabulary / T.V. Krylova // V.Yu. Apresyan, Yu.D. Apresyan and others. Language picture of the world and systemic lexicography. - M.: Languages of Slavic cultures - 2006.
13. Larina T.V. Category of Politeness and Communication Style: Comparison of English and Russian Linguistic and Cultural Traditions. - M.: Languages of Slavic cultures, 2009.
14. Larina TV. Category of politeness in the aspect of intercultural communication (Based on the material of English and Russian communicative cultures): Diss. ... Doctor of Philology - Moscow, 2003.
15. Leech G.N. Principles of Pragmatics/ Leech G.N. - London:Longman, 1983 - 250p.
16. Lüger H.-H. Aufforderung und Gesichtsschonung in Behördentexten // Höflichkeitsstile / Hrsg. H.-H. Lüger. - Frankfurt a/Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, NY, Oxford, Wien: Lang, 2002. - S. 165-184.
17. Ratmayr R. The Pragmatics of Apology. Comparative study on the material of the Russian
language and Russian culture. - M.: Languages of Slovenian culture, 2003.
18. Takhtarova S.S. Ethnocultural category of mitigation in the communicative aspect / Philological Sciences №4, 2008. - P. 55-61.
19. Vorderwülbecke K. Höflichkeit und Höflichkeitsformen/ Vorderwülbecke// Höflichkeitsstile. Vol.2. Frankfurt am M., Berlin, Bern, Bruxell, New York, Oxford, Wien: Lang, 2002 S.27-47.
20. Watts R.J. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality // Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice / Ed. by R.J. Watts et al. - Berlin; NY.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. - P. 43 - 69.
21. Zemskaya E.A. Language as an activity. Morpheme. Word. Speech / E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004.
ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКИ ГЛАГОЛА TO MAKE В РАЗЛИЧНЫХ ЯЗЫКОВЫХ
СТИЛЯХ
Шергозиев Ш.Ш.,
Наманганский инженерно-технологический институт
Наманган, Узбекистан Аъзамов С.М.
Наманганский инженерно-технологический институт
Наманган, Узбекистан
THE LEXICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VERB TO MAKE IN VARIOUS LANGUAGE STYLES
Shergoziyev Sh.,
Namangan institute of Engineering and Technology
Namangan, Uzbekistan A 'zamov S.
Namangan institute of Engineering and Technology
Namangan, Uzbekistan
АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье обсуждается широкий спектр употребление глагола to make в различных контекстах также лексико-семантические преобразование глагола в зависимости от особенности сочетания глагола в разговорной речи, в газетно-публистическом стиле, а также в научной и в функциональных стилях. Приведены подробные примеры употребления глагола в вышеупомянутых языковых стилях.
ABSTARCT
The article discusses the wide range of usage of the verb to make in various contexts, as well as the lexical-semantic transformation of the verb depending on the particular combination of the verb in colloquial speech, in the newspaper and journalistic style, as well as in scientific and functional styles. Detailed examples of the usage of the verb in the above mentioned language styles are given in this work.
Ключевые слова: сочетание, стиль, научный стиль, глагол, языковый стиль, газетный стиль, разговорная речь, контекст, литературный текст, значение
Keywords: combination, style, scientific style, verb, language style, newspaper style, spoken language, context, literary text, meaning
Среди всех лексических значений глагола to make одной из ведущих во всех трёх стилях является значение to act. В РР употребление make в этом значении составляет 26,8%, в ГПС - 26,5%, в НС - 2 1,2%о. Для НС это значение является ведущим (I место в ряду частотности). Отличительная особенность данного значения проявляется в сочетании глагола to make с существительными действия, которое имеет в английском языке однокор-невойглагол:
РР: 1. Mrs. Chevely: He is going to make a speech in the House tomorrow night in favour of the idea.
(O. Wilde, "An Ideal Husband", p. 196) to make a speech=to speak
2. Mr. Erlynne: She wants to make her apologies to them.
(O. Wilde "Lady Windermere' Fan", p. 58) to make an apology=to apologize
3. Tyrone: Will you stop repeating your mother's crazy accusations. Which she never makes unless it is poison talking?
(T hree American Plays "Long day's Journey into Night", p.101) to make an accusation=to accuse ГПС 1. No matter how worried you may be about your existing logics, making a change can appear too risky.
(The Business Age, February, 1994, p. 85) to make a change = to change 2. They make a move intended, to stimulate investment, but it the move involves higher taxes or more regulation, it may so darken investors' views of the future that the simulation will be diminished.
