CC BY
31
ЛИНГВОКУЛЬТУРОЛОГИЯ LANGUAGE AND CULTURE STUDIES
УДК 811.161.1-28
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет
канд. пед. наук, старший преподаватель кафедры теории и методики преподавания искусств и гуманитарных наук Румянцева Е.В. Россия, г. Санкт-Петербург, тел. + 7(911)164 88 37 e-mail: e.rumyantseva@spbu.ru
Е.В. Румянцева
ФУНКЦИОНИРОВАНИЕ В РУССКОЙ КОММУНИКАЦИИ ЯЗЫКОВЫХ СРЕДСТВ, УСИЛИВАЮЩИХ И СМЯГЧАЮЩИХ ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЕ НА АДРЕСАТА В СИТУАЦИИ ПРОСЬБЫ: ЛИНГВОКУЛЬТУРОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТ
Статья посвящена проблеме межкультурной интерференции, возникающей при продуцировании и восприятии просьб на русском языке американскими студентами, изучающими русский язык как иностранный. Просьба является одним из наиболее частотных и трудных для реализации речевых актов русской коммуникации. В ситуации просьбы у слушающего есть свобода выбора относительно того, совершать ли каузируемое действие, что придаёт особую важность выбору говорящим адекватных языковых средств. Это подразумевает знакомство говорящего с нормами русского коммуникативного поведения в ситуации просьбы в различных коммуникативных контекстах. Как утверждают исследователи, русское и американское коммуникативное поведение при продуцировании просьб сильно различается, а межкультурная интерференция в этой области может привести к коммуникативной неудаче и культурному шоку. Статья представляет результаты исследования языковых средств, использующихся в русском языке при оформлении просьбы. В фокусе данной статьи находится связь между использованием говорящим языковых средств, усиливающих или смягчающих воздействие на адресата, и уровнем вежливости просьбы. Представляется, что именно это соотношение отличает нормы коммуникативного поведения в ситуации просьбы, существующие у двух культур. Основываясь на результатах исследования, автор намечает наиболее вероятные зоны межкультурной интерференции, которые требуют особой проработки на занятиях по РКИ.
Ключевые слова: русский язык как иностранный, межкультурная интерференция, речевой акт, просьба, коммуникативное поведение, вежливость.
E.V. Rumyantseva
RAISING RFL-PRAGMATIC AWARENESS: LINGUISTIC RESOURCES AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF REQUESTS
IN RUSSIAN AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON POLITENESS OF REQUESTS
St.-PetersburgState University The chair of theory and methodology of teaching arts and humanities PhD, senior lecturer Rumyantseva E. V. Russia, St. Petersburg, + 7(911)164 88 37 e-mail: e.rumyantseva@spbu.ru
© Румянцева Е.В., 2019
The article is devoted to the problem of possible negative pragmatic transfer in situations when American students produce or comprehend requests in the Russian language. Requests are very frequent in Russian communication, but their successful production depends greatly on the precise choice of linguistic means and speaker's knowledge of norms of Russian linguistic behavior. As researchers note, Russian and American linguistic behavior in the situations of request differ greatly, and pragmatic transfer in this area may lead to pragmatic failure and culture shock. The article presents a data-based study of linguistic means used for conveying requests in the Russian language. The object of inquiry is the possibility of using certain linguistic resources in a certain communicative context for conveying requests with different level of politeness. Correlation between the usage by a speaker of linguistic means aggravating or mitigating imposition on a listener and the level of politeness of requests is under scrutiny. Basing on the analysis, the author tries to point out the areas which due to cultural and linguistic specifics of the Russian language might with great possibility suffer negative pragmatic transfer of American RFL-learners. Such areas require special training of American students in RFL-class.
Key words: Russian as a foreign language, cross-linguistic influence, pragmatic transfer, speech act, request, linguistic behavior, politeness.
Within Russian as a foreign language teaching, many studies have addressed the importance of developing pragmatic awareness and building knowledge of pragmatic aspects of language use. Research has shown that "in addition to the linguistic competence related to grammatical, phonological and morphological rules, language users must also possess pragmatic knowledge in order to communicate effectively in the target language" [11]. Pragmatic competence is a vital component of successful learner's communication in the Russian language. In order to communicate successfully, a speaker needs not only the knowledge of the particular resources, which Russian provides for conveying particular illocutions, but also the ability of using linguistic resources correctly in order to achieve the desired conversational outcomes. That implies the knowledge of cultural, social and discourse conventions used in linguistic behavior while communicating in the Russian language. However, cross-linguistic influence makes learners transfer their pragmatic and sociocultural knowledge from their native language into a target language, and to incorporate some linguistic behavior from their first language into the language studied. Pragmatic transfer is viewed by researchers as a major factor in shaping learners pragmatic competence [9, p. 205]. Thus, learners' performance in the Russian language would be influenced greatly by social and cultural conventions and norms of polite behavior that exist in their native language. From this perspective, the transfer of utterances, which are semantically and syntactically equivalent, but tend to convey different pragmatic force and level of politeness, is especially dangerous. This may lead to communicative failure and cultural shock since the concept of politeness and norms of linguistic behavior may differ greatly in different languages. From this point of view, request is one of the most difficult and face threatening speech act for Russian language learners, since its successful comprehension and production depend greatly on pragmatic competence, the knowledge of appropriate linguistic behavior in different communicative situations. It is essential that situation of request speech act implies the freedom of an interlocutor to fulfill or not the action, desired by a speaker. This makes the choice of appropriate linguistic material vital for communicative success, since requesting with the help of linguistic means that violate the norms of Russian linguistic behavior in a given situation, with great probability, would lead to a pragmatic and communicative failure.
Because of all the factors mentioned, studies of requests are very important for RFL (Russian as a foreign language) as a science. In different cultures, norms of linguistic behavior in the situation of requests differ greatly depending on such culture-specific concept as politeness. While in some cultures politeness is associated with keeping distance from a listener, respecting his/her privacy which implies the usage of indirect requests, linguistic means of mitigating imposition on a listener; in others, it is connected with demonstrating friendli-
ness or deference to a listener while imposition on him/her is not perceived as a violation of polite linguistic behavior [4]. From this point of view, the problem of the influence of Russian linguistic means aggravating or mitigating illocutionary force of a request on its level of politeness is of a special interest. This article presents a data-based study of linguistic means used for conveying requests in the Russian language. Form-functioning mapping of linguistic material, the ability of linguistic means to convey polite requests in a way that is appropriate in a certain communicative context and correlation between the requestive force of an utterace and its level of politeness are under scrutiny. Basing on the analysis, the author will try to point out the areas which due to cultural and linguistic specifics of the Russian language might with great possibility suffer negative pragmatic transfer of American RFL learners. Americans were selected as a target group of learners because of dramatic differences in Russian and American linguistic behavior in requesting. Before presenting results and analysis regarding this study, some notions about cultural specifics of Russian request speech acts will be addressed.
Various studies, devoted to the research of Russian linguistic behavior, state high frequency of request speech acts in the Russian language [2]. Russian possesses a lot of lexical and syntactic means capable of conveying requests. Performing a request, speakers choose from a variety of strategies and forms which differ in their pragmatic force and politeness. For example, producing requests, speakers may choose whether to use directness or indirectness, what amount of politeness they want to invest by varying degrees of deference or intimacy; what degree of imposition they can allow to themselves in their requests, basing on the assessment of relevant contextual factors, and thus, what linguistic means of mitigating or aggravating illocutionary force they would use. This choice normally would be based on norms of linguistic behavior typical for a certain communicative context. Making the choice, speakers would take into account relationships between interlocutors (i.e. social distance and status), register of communication, legitimacy of the requestive goal and "standardness" of request (the amount of effort required from the interlocutor to fulfill the request) and etc. Selection of the language-specific means for the implementation of request would depend on all these factors. In this respect, we can talk about distribution of all linguistic means that could be used for request production, among different communicative contexts. Researchers point out that speakers vary the selection of means for implementation of requests along various contextual parameters, namely: 1) whether social status of their interlocutors is equal or unequal (higher or lower); 2) depending on speaker-listener degree of intimacy in terms of ingroup - outgroup (their social distance); 3) taking into account register of their conversation (formal - informal) [3, 7, 10]. Basing on all these factors, speakers would not only choose a certain requesting strategy and particular linguistic means, but they may also choose the desired level of politeness (low, standard or high) and different shades of meaning for their requests (for example, begging, demand, reproach and so on) [4]. It is needless to say that all these strategies and linguistic resources are culturally and linguistically specific and are subject to negative pragmatic transfer. Therefore, the knowledge of means that are appropriate for requesting in different communicative contexts is a vital component of successful communication in the Russian language. This implies the necessity of classification of linguistic means, frequently used for requesting in Russian, in terms of their functioning in different communicative contexts and their ability to convey requests of various degree of politeness and shades of meaning.
In order to create the classification, described above, the author retrieved the corpora of utterances with requesting function, using the data of Russian National Corpus, texts of Russian classic literature of 19-20th centuries, Russian movies, TV shows. The corpora consisted of 1200 utterances. The material was analyzed using the following criteria: formal / informal register of communication, equal or unequal social status of interlocutors, short or remote so-
cial distance between interlocutors in terms of their familiarity. Special attention was paid to the "semantically marked" requests - requests the fulfillment of which is very important, urgent or requires a big effort from addressees, since such utterances require the usage of linguistic means and strategies indicating high level of politeness. It is important to note, that requests made in contexts where social status of a speaker was higher than status of a listener were excluded from the corpora, because in many situations they could be perceived not as requests, but as orders or demands.
The present article will discuss the results of the study concerning the influence of the strength of the requestive force of an utterance on the level of its politeness rather than complete classification created (more information about the outcomes of the study could be found in [5]).
The frequency of linguistic constructions, used for requesting in the data collected during the study, could be presented in the following drawing:
Requests
11 5 51 ■ Imperative constructions ■ Interrogative constructions ■ Performative constructions
33 ■ Declarative nonperformative constructions
Drawing 1. Frequency of linguistic constructions used for requesting in the data collected
As drawing 1 shows, the vast majority of all requests were produced with the help of imperative constructions (51% of all collected utterances). Imperative was used in all contexts of communication (formal and informal register, status equal and unequal roles of interlocutors). It is important to emphasize that in many cases it was used to convey requests with high level of politeness. In this case, speakers used markers of intimacy between interlocutors (голубчик, дорогой - dear) or politeness markers to express deference towards their interlocutors ( будьте так добры, будьте так любезны - be so kind; сделайте одолжение - do me a favor and etc.). As researchers point out, requests formed with the help of such markers are specially interesting from the point of view of crosscultural comparative studies. Such requests contain two imperatives (be so kind, do something) which aggravate their requestive force and their imposition on a listener. Thus, politeness markers in such requests do not mitigate the pressure on an interlocutor, but intensify it [4, p. 95].
The frequency of imperative constructions in all communicative contexts, their ability to be used for requests with high level of politeness characterizes Russian typical linguistic behavior in situation of request as imposing. Aggravating requesting force and imposition on a listener does not make requests impolite or make them look like demands. For example, in the data collected, imperative constructions with politeness marker пожалуйста (please) were the most frequent way, used to express requests with standard level of politeness in all
communicative contexts, except situations of informal communication between interlocutors with close social distance (relatives and friends). In the latter type of communicative context, imperatives with politeness marker пожалуйста were frequently used for highly polite "se-mantically marked" requests ("Аня, одолжи мне, пожалуйста, денег. - Сколько? - Много. Двадцать тысяч" (телесериал "Детективы") -Ann, please, give me some money. - How much? - A lot. 20 thousand. (TVseries "Detectives").
This feature of Russian linguistic behavior may become a reason for communicative failure and cultural shock for Russian language learners with contrary linguistic and cultural background, for example, Americans. Researches argue that in American communication a request is perceived as a face-threatening speech act both for a speaker and a listener. It violates privacy of a listener and could be dangerous for speaker's "face" in case of listener's refusal to fulfill the request. This makes request speech acts unwelcome in most communicative contexts of American communication [12]. In order to produce a polite request, speakers need to use a whole bunch of negative politeness strategies aimed at mitigating requestive force of their utterance, for example, they use hedges or questions, minimize the imposition, use obviating structures, like passives and so on [8]. Requesting in a non-imposing way is a key principle of American linguistic behavior. Thus, politeness of a request could be estimated by a listener, basing on the presence of means mitigating or aggravating the requestive force of the utterance: the more indicators aggravating the requestive force is used by a speaker the less polite a request is and vice versa. This makes the requests, conveyed with the help of imperative construction, be perceived as impolite as they put too much imposition on a listener. As researchers note, the usage of imperative constructions in American linguistic behavior is possible only for the requests expressed in communication between relatives and friends. In other communicative contexts, imperative constructions indicate low level of request politeness or add extra shades of meaning to utterances (for example, begging or demand) [4, 7]. Such discrepancy between Russian and American linguistic behavior could cause negative pragmatic transfer and pragmatic failure.
The analysis of data collected showed that interrogative constructions were used in 33 % of requests (Вы не сделаете? Не могла бы я Вас попросить сделать? Не могли бы Вы сделать? Вас не затруднит сделать? и др. - Won't you do X? Could not I ask you to do X? Could not you do X? It wouldn't be hard for you to do X? and so on ). Questions were especially frequent in official register of communication and in communication between interlocutors with unequal social status and/or remote social distance. In most cases, interrogative constructions were used for conveying highly polite or formal requests (Не можете ли Вы одолжить мне карандашика? - обратился Пигасов к Басистову (И.С. Тургенев "Рудин") [6]. - Could (not) you give me a pen? - said Pigasov to Basistov (I. Turgenev "Rudin"); Да вот приятель у меня захворал. Не можете ли Вы его освидетельствовать? (А. Аверченко "Шутка мецената") [1] - My friend fell ill. Could (not) you examine him? (A. Averchenko "Maecenas' Joke"). The usage of questions for requesting generally involved the implementation of politeness markers, mitigating the requestive force of the utterance, and thus making requests less direct. For example, a lot of questions included negation it their structure, expressed by a negative particle не (не могли бы Вы сделать Х, не мог(ла) бы я сделать Х, Вы не сделаете Х - Could not you do X, Could not I do X, Won't you do X and etc.). Such utterances clearly minimize the imposition on a listener in request situation, and follow several strategies of negative politeness ("be indirect", "ask questions", "be pessimistic", "minimize imposition" and so on). This can make American students perceive such utterances as the only polite way to convey requests in Russian. But, as it was mentioned before, the data of the study refute it. The fact, that a vast bunch of polite requests were expressed by imperative statements, indicates that unlike in American communication, in Russian the level of request politeness does not directly depend on the amount of imposi-
tion on a listener. Even highly imposing performative constructions may be used for conveying requests of standard level of politeness in a certain communicative contexts.
In the data collected, performative utterances (Я прошу Вас + imperative; Я прошу Вас + infinitive) were used for conveying 11% of requests. The level of politeness of such utterances depended on the communicative context in which they were used. For example, in official communication, performative constuction Я прошу Вас (I ask you) + infinitive was used for requests with standard level of politeness: Уважаемый Иван Васильевич! Я прошу засвидетельствовать: вот список украденных вещей (кинофильм «Иван Васильевич меняет профессию») - Dear Ivan Vassilyevich! I ask you to testify: that's the list of the stolen things (movie "Ivan Vasilievich changes his profession "). The implementation of such construction in informal register of communication lowered the level of politeness and made a request look like a demand: Вот лица попрошу не касаться (кинофильм «Иван Васильевич меняет профессию») - I ask you not to talk about my face! (movie "Ivan Vasilievich changes his profession"). In the examples presented, the level of request politeness depended not only on a linguistic structure and the level of imposition on a listener, but on a communicative context, in which certain linguistic resources were used. Thus, the results of the study show no direct correlation between the level of politeness of a request and its illocutionary force. American students could not rely on their cultural background assessing Russian requests. Rather in order to communicate successfully, they should familiarize themselves with set of linguistic structures that are normally used for requesting in different communicative contexts according to the norms of Russian linguistic behavior. Otherwise negative pragmatic transfer would make American learners perceive the majority of Russian requests as impolite. Thus, special training in requesting in different communicative contexts and form-functioning mapping of linguistic material should be provided for American students in RFL class. Descriptions of differences in communicative style of requesting may help to prepare American students to interact more appropriately within Russian communication.
Библиографический список
1. Аверченко А. Шутка мецената. М., 1990. 256 с.
2. Американское коммуникативное поведение / Под ред. И.А. Стернина, М.А. Стерниной. Воронеж: ВГУ, 2001. 224 с.
3. Беляева Е.И. Грамматика и прагматика побуждения: английский язык. Воронеж: Изд-во ВГТУ, 1992. 168 с.
4. Ларина Т.В. Категория вежливости в английской и русской коммуникативных культурах: Монография. М.: Изд-во РУДН, 2003. 315 с.
5. Румянцева Е.В. Лингвокультурологический аспект обучения американских учащихся русскому коммуникативному поведению в ситуации просьбы // Актуальные вопросы современной филологии и журналистики. 2017. № 4(27). С. 65-70.
6. Тургенев И.С. Рудин. СПб.: ИГ Лениздат, 2014. 192 с.
7. Формановская Н.И. Русский речевой этикет: нормативный социокультурный контекст. М.: Русский язык, 2002. 160 с.
8. Brown P., Levinson D. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
9. Kasper G. Pragmatic transfer // Second Language Research, 8 (3), 1992. P. 293-231.
10. Leech G.N. Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1980. 133 p.
11. Rosales V.P., Barragan J.A. Raising EFL Pragmatic Awareness in situations which require the speech act: requests. // Quintero Mextesol journal. URL: http://www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=1179/
12. Watts R. J. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, 2003. 318 p.
References
1. Averchenko A. Maecenas' joke. Moscow, 1990. 256 p.
2. American communicative behavior // Ed. by I.A. Sternin, M.A. Sternina. Voronezh,
2001. 224 p.
3. Belyaeva E.I. Grammatic and pragmatic aspects of English requests. Voronezh, 1992. 168 p.
4. Larina T.V. Politeness in English and Russian communication. Moscow, 2003.
315 p.
5. Rumyantseva E.V. Teaching Russian request strategies to American students: cultural aspect // Actual Issues of Modern Philology and Journalism. 2017. Vol. 4(27). P. 65-70.
6. Turgenev I.S. Rudin. St.-Petersburg, 2014. 192 p.
7. Formanovskaja N.I. Russian speech etiquette: social and cultural aspect. Moscow,
2002. 160 p.
8. Brown P., Levinson D. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
9. Kasper G. Pragmatic transfer // Second Language Research. 1992. Iss. 8 (3). P. 293231.
10. Leech G. N. Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1980. 133 p.
11. Rosales V.P., Barragan J.A. Raising EFL Pragmatic Awareness in situations which require the speech act: requests. // Quintero Mextesol journal. URL: http://www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=1179/
12. Watts R. J. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, 2003. 318 p.
