CC BY
13
UDC 81-25
DOI 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(3)454-464
ISSN 2413-6182 eISSN 2658-4867
THE FUNCTION OF METACOMMUNICATIVE MARKERS IN RUSSIAN-SPEAKING COMMUNICATION (A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ASPECT)
T.I. Popova
St. Petersburg State University (St. Petersburg, Russia)
Abstract: The article considers the use of metacommunicative pragmatic markers in the gender aspect, taking into account the social roles of the speaker. The research is carried out on the data of ORD corpus Russian Everyday Speech known as "One Speaker's Day" corpus, based on transcripts of audio recordings obtained under actual conditions. The volume of the subsample is about 200,000 words. It features episodes of "speech days" by 15 women and 15 men of three age groups. The informants act in various social roles, opposed by the principle of symmetry/asymmetry. Pragmatic annotation of the material and further discursive analysis presented that metacommunication is actively used in the speech of speakers, but it is much more in the speech of women. At the same time, men use markers of this type (slushai / davai segodnya / (m...m) v tishine provedyom den', potom na golodnyi zheludok eyo luchshe ne est' / znaesh') with specific speech tasks, for example, as a refusal (slushai / u menya net deneg), and in the speech of women the variability of metacommunicative markers is wider, but functional diversity is not observed. One of the features of Russian-speaking communication is the tendency to cooperate and maintain a dialogue in woman speech. From the point of view of feminist linguistics, this feature is directly related to the issues of the dependent position of a woman, since it records her passivity and the habit of yielding. There is a special form of language that is used only by women in some ethnic groups. However, it should be noted that more than half of the identified uses relate to the speech of women in the older age group (from 55 years), communicating with relatives and friends, while metacommunicative pragmatic markers become multifunctional and also act as a starting marker in the speech of representatives of the younger age group.
Key words: sociolinguistics, gender linguistics, corpus linguistics, oral speech, linguistic relativity, pragmatic marker, metacommunication, Russian-speaking communication.
For citation:
Popova, T.I. (2021), The function of metacommunicative markers in Russian-speaking communication (a sociolinguistic aspect). Communication Studies (Russia), Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 454-464. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(3).454-464.
© Т.И. Попова, 2021
About the author:
Popova, Tatiana Ivanovna, Graduate student of the Faculty of Philology Corresponding author:
Postal address: 11, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia E-mail: tipopova13@gmail.com
Acknowledgements:
The work was supported by the RFBR grant No. 17-29-09175 "Diagnostic Features of Sociolinguistic Variation in Everyday Spoken Russian (based on the Material of 'One Speaker's Day' corpus)"
Received: March 19, 2021
Revised: April 17, 2021
Accepted: July 20, 2021
1. Introduction
In «The Second Sex» Simone de Beauvoir says that the formed perception makes the «female» features marked, and the male remains a kind of standard: «being a woman, if not a vice, then at least a trait» [Beauvoir 2017: 186]. There are features of negative evaluation of women and «femininity» in the language. For example, the transfer of evaluative signs typical for women (according to stereotypes] is used when required to negatively characterize the referent with male characteristics [Goroshko 2001: 520]. There is the concept of «female» logic, «female» films, and all this is marked by a clear negative connotation.
Indeed, «a man would never get the notion of writing a book on the peculiar situation of the human male» [Beauvoir 2017: 9]. So it is in language: there are ideas about how women speak, and how she should not speak: «You're a girl». The «female narrative» is studied, while the unmarked narrative remains on the other side: «the implicit form of the gender aspect is associated with the linguistic actualization of the gender stereotype through lexical and semantic categories» [Zubenko 2020: 657].
But all this can only be attributed to the fact that there are certain stereotypes and certain social roles that prescribe a speaker and a special type of speech behavior too, for example, the role of the mother implies a baby talk.
In the process of communication there is a constant speech switching, in which, as it seems, «the success of communication largely depends on whether the speaker and the listener are sufficiently proficient in the forms of language suitable for this situation» [Krysin 2004: 430].
Thus, the speaker's possession of several speech codes is manifested at the level of his social roles (SR) in the communication process, where it is possible to detect specific features, or linguistic correlates, of these roles. The social role generates an «expectation» of a certain behavior from a person, in-
eluding speech. In this case, the implementation of the SR will vary with the situation, but only if it is within the limits allowed for a particular role.
The study of Russian oral discourse based on social roles raises some questions: will women and men in similar social roles build the same discourse? Or will a certain «female» or «male» tactic of achieving the goal appear in the process of communication? What sets the specifics of communication to a greater extent: gender or situation?
The purpose of this paper is to find the specifics of the construction of oral discourse by women and men in different social roles, using the method of pragmatic annotation of corpus material.
The discursive practices fix the attitude of the speakers to the sign. Since a speech behavior is formed on the basis of deep stereotypical patterns, it becomes possible to detect the connections of language structures with the characteristics of speakers and their speech attitudes. «The gender intrigue begins to unfold before the researcher at the moment when he is immersed in the world of discourse, and the use of language begins to be «measured» precisely by the mental space of the discourse» [Khaleeva 1999: 6].
Therefore, this study presents the results of a pragmatic analysis of oral discourse. Similar conclusions on the material of colloquial speech were made by A. Belyaeva [Belyaeva 2002]. However, this work is carried out within the framework of pragmatic annotation of speech and taking into account the features of the social roles of speakers.
2. Pragmatic Markers of Colloquial Speech
In a speech, there are many ways to express the speaker's intentions. Pragmatics deals with the study of the behavior of language signs in the real process of communication. The ways of achieving certain communication goals by the speaker are also separately considered [Arutyunova 1990].
In oral speech, there are units that be exposed to a process of grammati-calization and, as a result, almost lose their lexical and/or grammatical meaning and begin to perform only certain functions. Following N.V. Bogdanova-Beglarian, we will call them pragmatic markers (PM). The functional typology of PM is described in [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2014, 2021].
The speaker explicates his communicative intentions, attitude to the addressee, and appeal to the perceptual base shared with the interlocutors with the help of PM. Thanks to the presence of pragmatic markers, the listener can perceive not only the content but also the structural side of a speech, understands how communication proceeds: the beginning and end of the utterance are marked, the search for the right unit, omitting (ignoring) details, emphasizing the important, difficulties of various kinds and the call to continue communication.
For this study, metacommunicative markers are of particular importance (M), which help the informant to understand what is said himself, as well
as to establish and then maintain contact with the interlocutor, to promote the correct interpretation of the heard statement:
• a seichas / a seichas oni vot / (e...e) strakhovuyu da sperva ? *P (e...e) / nu u kogo kakaya strakhovaya/ponimaesh' ? u kogo bol'shaya/ tomu vygodno //a u kogo (...) ona ne povyshalasya* *P vot (S136, 55 y.o., with the friend]1.
The research is carried out on the data of ORD corpus Russian everyday speech known as «One Speaker's Day» corpus, based on transcripts of audio recordings obtained under natural conditions. Currently, the corpus contains more than 1,250 hours of speech recorded from 128 informants, men and women, aged 17 to 83 years, and more than 1,000 of their communicants (see more about the ORD: [Asinovsky et al. 2009; Bogdanova-Beglarian et al. 2017a, b; Bogdanova-Beglarian 2016]].
The metatext annotation system is organized in the ORD in such a way that the resulting database contains extensive information and allows you to balance the material according to different parameters. One of the understudied aspects in the ORD corpus is the category of the speaker's social role.
All the social roles played by the ORD informants were grouped into certain categories. There is an extensive classification of CR in the ORD: relatives, colleagues, paired roles (doctor and patient, client and service representative].
The most interesting are the roles that are opposed to each other according to the principle of symmetry/asymmetry of relations in the theory of sociolinguistics [Belikov, Krysin 2001: 201-202]. This creates additional correlations of the speakers' speech: in addition to gender and age differences, it shows the influence of situational, role, and context on speech [Popova 2019, 2020].
3. Corpus Data Analysis
When compiling frequency lists of speaker's in asymmetric or symmetrical social roles, one feature was found: in the upper part of the dictionary there is a unit ponimaesh' that serves to attract the attention of the interlocutor, acting, from the point of view of pragmatics, as a metacommunicative [Po-pova 2018].
Such functioning of contact verbs in a dialogue refers to the theory of politeness of P. Brown and S. Levinson [Brown, Levinson 1987], who distinguish the category of a social person, including those related to a communicative interaction. A person strives to belong to the community and receive approval from the members of the society (a positive face] as well as to have freedom and independence (a negative face]. From this point of view, the grammatical form of the verb understands itself is aimed at establishing contact and maintaining a
1 All examples in the work are attributed with the speaker's code (S1, S2...), as well as gender and age. The signs *P and (...) in the deciphers of the ORD mean hesitation pauses of different duration; the sign ( * ] after the word - an error of one kind or another. For other features of the orthographic representation of the ORD material (signs of discursive transcription], see: [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2016: 242-243].
positive face of the interlocutor, while the imperative forms of contact verbs (smotri, slushai, prikin 3 refer rather to threats to the negative face of the listener.
Now our research returns to the field of gender studies. In the article by E.A. Zemskaya and her colleagues [Zemskaya, Kitaigorodskaya, Rozanova 2015], the main conclusions include the following aspects:
• women are more likely to engage in cooperative conversation, so they ask more questions and express more responses than men1;
• women are more polite in their handling;
• women more often use indirect requests than orders.
In the studies of psychologists, it is really emphasized that a typical female trait is a focus on the interlocutor in the process of communication (see, for example: [Tannen 1996; Mayers 2010: 200-241]]. This refers to the stereotypical ideas about the passivity and compliance of women. But this feature is also confirmed by discursive practices.
In different languages there is a division into male and female variants of the language, or even separate male and female languages. For example, in Japan, the rules of gender speech behavior are different, which is due to the existence of specific male and female language units. Women's speech is most clearly different from men's in the field of grammar, vocabulary and intonation. Women's speech is characterized by soft pronunciation, restraint, and a calm tone of the narration. Women use the most polite phrases that exist in the Japanese language: «Women are guided by "open" social prestige, i.e., by generally recognized norms of social and speech behavior: their speech is more neutral, static. Men, on the contrary, are not afraid to look casual and relaxed in speech, striving for the so-called "hidden prestige" - deviation from the norms and rules of communication» [Kothoff 2005: 596-598]. Similarly, D. Tannen in his study also concludes that it is important to maintain intimacy without conflict for women [Tannen 1996].
In the work of Yu.A. Belyaeva, such units in the speech behavior of women are understood as a manifestation of cooperativeness and are called actualiz-ers, or communicatives [Belyaeva 2002].
1 The study of the oral discourse on the corpus material showed that there are significantly (almost three times) more interrogative cues in the ORD corpus as a whole than exclamation cues (2.0 vs 0.7 % in the general frequency list), and in the speech of men there are slightly more of them than in the speech of women (2.4 vs 1.94 %). In the speech of informants of the younger age group (up to and including 30 years), there were twice as many replicas of questions as in the older informants (over 50 years) (2.5 vs 1.3 %), and only in the younger and older ones, exclamation cues were included in the upper zone of the frequency list (0.8 and 1.04 %, respectively) [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2016: 80-81]. The same conclusions can be drawn from the material of oral monologues collected in the corpus «Balanced Annotated Text Library» (see about it: [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2013]). In monologues, men are three times more likely than women to use the question-and-answer form of reasoning, twice as likely to assess the compliance of their speech with a certain communicative scenario, a little more often (1.2 and 1.3 times) use various discursive markers and self-correction [Zaides 2017a].
As a result of the analysis of about 200 thousand units, it was found that women use metacommunication twice as often as men. Metacommunication is generally widespread in our communication. In the speech of 15 men and 15 women, it was found in almost all, but in the speech of women 156 uses of the corresponding units were detected, and in the speech of men - only 82.
The obtained results differ from the data of monologic speech: «the average number of metacommunicative units in a male monologue of any type is 1.35, in a female monologue - 1.38. The student's T-criterion for these samples was 0.16, and p (the probability of the hypothesis that the parameter 'gender' does not affect the number of metacommunicative units in the monologue] is > 0.87, which suggests that the gender of the informant does not affect the number of metacommunicative elements in monologue speech» [Zaides 2017b].
Interestingly, in the speech of men, metacommunication was found only in symmetrical social roles: communication with friends, and with his wife and children at home to a greater extent, cp.:
• potom nagolodnyi zheludok eyo luchshe ne est'/znaesh' (S127, 42 y.o., at home with the son];
• ideal'nykh uslovii ne byvaet/ponimaesh' ? (S127, 42 y.o., at home with the son];
• slushai / oni navernoe Boleslavovnu nenavidyat (S44, 41 y.o., at home with the wife];
• nu / vidish' / pokhorony rodstvennikov / blizkikh / *P oni vsegda vot takie vot (S119, 49 y.o., at home with the wife].
Among the material, there is a clear tendency to use metacommunicative markers in order to express dissatisfaction, indignation, in order to refuse:
• yazyki pokazyvaet/predstavlyaesh' ? (S119, 49 y.o., at home with the
wife];
• slushai / davai popozzhe ! *P ili ty seichas khochesh' ? (S36, 40 y.o., at home with the friend];
• slushai / davai segodnya / (m...m) v tishine provedyom den'/ chto-to u menya (...) golova treshchit ot etoi muzyki (S36, 40 y.o., at home with the friend];
• nu ty predstavlyaesh'/ ya voobshche nichego v nikh ne soobrazhayuya ! (S35, 70 y.o., with the wife];
• da net / ty znaesh' /ya kak-to / na samom dele (...) segodnya (m-m) nemnozhkogrushchu opyat' (S122, 33 y.o., with the colleague].
There are almost no cases where the PM serves as a means of expressing an indirect request:
• privet Andrei% // *P slushai / vopros(:) v sleduyushchem / chto u nas tam po naryadam tret'ego fakul'teta ? (S102, 27 y.o., with the friend].
The material of women's speech looks quite different. In all age groups, regardless of the social role - even at work in a situation of formal communication, women actively resort to:
• vidish' seichas zvonila (...) zhenshchina / kotoraya zanimaetsya etim eksperimentom i sprosila/ ya skazala / chto my s toboi vedyom eksperiment (S129, 70 y.o., with the daughter);
• *V nu ty znaesh' vot/ ty proiznesla frazu / ot kotoroi deistvitel'no *K (e) volosy dybom (S130, 74 y.o., with the friend);
• kak budto u menya zdes' takoi vot bol'shoi mikrofon / ty stoish' s ogrom-noi kameroi / ponimaesh' kak eshchyo pri Vlade_List'eve // vot takoi ogromnyi (S61, 25 y.o., with the friend);
• eto vsyo ravno EGE bylo // *P imeetsya v vidu (...) testy takie vot / da / kak s(?) vy zapolnyaete (S65, 48 y.o., at work);
• tak / tut nikakaya ne khodit perepyolka ? slushai / da normal'no vsyo s nei (S128, 38 y.o., with the husband);
• Mishanya% / znaesh' kak mne nravitsya / pryamo balde(:)yu (S77, 39 y.o., at work with the colleague);
• nu slushai nu vidish' khochet videt' na ekrane formu ... (S91, 48, with the friend);
• a vot znaesh' ni s togo / ni s sego / raz vot / i poyavlyaetsya vot takaya bol' (S136, 55 y.o., with the friend).
In the speech of women, it is difficult to trace the special pragmatic significance of PM. This special feature of speech is only a way of cooperation, a constant signal to the interlocutor that his opinion is important and necessary, that the statement needs a response:
• net/ eto znachit nuzhno postepenno s rebyonkom / ponimaesh' ? (S130, 74 y.o., with the friend);
• no prosto znaesh'/ nu () dolzhno zhe byt' v nashikh () lyudyakh khot' chto-to chelovecheskoe ! ponimaesh' ? vot khot' kakoi-to gramm ostavat'sya (S136, 55 y.o., with the friend)
• smotri/ *P po povodu chetverga (S65, 48 y.o., with the client);
• a(:) a ponimaesh' / a Sergei% ne schitaet vot nuzhnym (a-a) u... u(:)... (m-m) kak () kak () uzhimat'sya(:)/utruzhdat'(:) sebya/kopit'den'gi(:) tam na kvartiru(:) (S131, 69 y.o., with the friend).
It is important to note that metacommunication is particularly characteristic for the older age group (from 55 years) - 106 cases out of 156 (68 %), in the middle age group -34 metacommunication PM use (21.8 %), and in the younger only 16 (10.2 %):
• slushai/ etot Evgenii_Khrapov% on s ofisa ili otkuda ? (S71, 22 y.o., with the colleague-friend);
• vidish' / ya pereselyayus' na Shevchenko$ (S69, 20 y.o., with the friend);
• tak / smotrite () vy brali seredinku zerkal'nyi shkaf / i po bokam kanaly duba / vot vot takie kak tam polosochki (S71, 22 y.o., with the client);
• smotrite ! tam eshchyo v etom fotoapparate est' takaya fishka (S62, 30 y.o., with the client).
In all the cases presented, the metacommunication marker is multifunctional and also acts as a border marker, or rather a starting marker. The discovered feature may be a tendency to change discursive practices among women.
The main selection of the subcorpus of oral everyday speech confirms the conclusions described earlier in the works of linguists that women really resort to the tactics of making a good impression.
4. Conclusion
The data obtained during the analysis of the material of everyday colloquial speech, taking into account various sociological parameters (social role and communicative situation, etc.], will allow us to get a more accurate idea of how our stereotypes affect speech behavior, to understand in which communication situations they are most active. Changings in thinking and culture become possible thanks to understanding deep language structures that reflect mentality. Although it seems that the language copes with this request itself: for example, in Japan, the «female» form of the language has not been used for a long time, without which it was impossible to do half a century ago, and the younger age group of Russian-speaking speakers practically does not use the «female» tactics of cooperation in the form of metacommunication.
References
Arutyunova, N.D. (1990), Pragmatika [Pragmatics]. Yartseva, V.N. (ed.) Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, Moscow, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya publ., pp. 389390. (in Russian).
Asinovsky, A., Bogdanova, N., Rusakova, M., Ryko, A., Stepanova, S., Sherstinova, T. (2009), The ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication "One Speaker's Day": Creation Principles and Annotation. TSD 2009, Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence, Vol. 5729, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer publ., pp. 250257. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-04208-9_36. Beauvoir, S. de (2017), The Second Sex, St. Petersburg, Azbuka publ., 924 p. (in Russian). Belikov, V.I., Krysin, L.P. (2001), Sotsiolingvistika [Sociolinguistics], Moscow, Russian State University for Humanities publ., 315 p. (in Russian). Belyaeva, Yu.A. (2002), Osobennosti rechevogo povedeniya muzhchin i zhenshchin: Na materiale russkoi razgovornoi rechi [Features of Speech Behavior of Men and Women: On the Material of Russian Colloquial Speech], Author's abstract, Saratov, 19 p. (in Russian). Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.) (2021), Pragmaticheskie markery russkoi povsednev-noi rechi [Pragmatic Markers of Russian Everyday Speech], Dictionary-monograph, Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury publ., 405 p. (in print). (in Russian). Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.) (2016), Russkii yazyk povsednevnogo obshchenia: osobennosti funktsionirovaniya v raznykh sotsial'nykh gruppakh [Russian Language of Everyday Communication: Features of Functioning in Different Social Groups], Collective Monograph, St. Petersburg, LAIKA publ., 244 p. (in Russian).
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (2014), Pragmatic items in everyday speech: definition of the concept and general typology. Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology, Iss. 3 (27), pp. 7-20. (in Russian).
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.) (2013), Zvukovoi korpus kak material dlya analiza russkoi rechi [The Speech Corpus as a Material for Analyzing Russian Speech], Collective Monograph, Pt. 1. Reading. Retelling. Description, St. Petersburg, Philological faculty of the St. Petersburg State University publ., 532 p. (in Russian).
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V., Sherstinova, T.Yu., Blinova, O.V., Martynenko, G.Ya. (2017a), "One Speaker's Day" Corpus in Studies of Sociolinguistic Variation Colloquial Russian. Kocharov, D.A., Skrelin, P.A. (eds.) Analiz razgovornoi russkoi rechi (AR3-2017) [Analisis of spoken Russian Speech], Proceedings of the 7th Interdisciplinary Seminar, St. Petersburg, Politekhnika-print publ., pp. 14-20. (in Russian).
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Sherstinova, T., Blinova, O., Martynenko, G. (2017b), Linguistic Features and Sociolinguistic Variability in Everyday Spoken Russian. SPECOM 2017, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI, Vol. 10458, Springer publ., pp. 503-511. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-66429-3_50.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 358 p.
Goroshko, E.I. (2001), Gendernaya problematika v yazykoznanii [Gender Problematics in Linguistics]. Vvedenie v gendernye issledovaniya [Introduction to Gender Studies], Pt. 1, Kharkiv, St. Petersburg, Aleteiya publ., pp. 508-543. (in Russian).
Khaleeva, I.I. (1999), Gender kak intriga poznaniya [Gender as the Intrigue of Knowledge]. Gendernyi faktor v yazyke i kommunikatsii [Gender in Language and Communication], Ivanovo, Rudomino publ., pp. 5-9. (in Russian).
Kothoff, H. (2005), Gendernye issledovaniya v prikladnoi lingvistike [Gender Studies in Applied Linguistics]. Kirilina, A.V. (ed.) Gender iyazyk [Gender and language], Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur publ., pp. 563-622. (in Russian).
Krysin, L.P. (2004), Russkoe slovo, svoe i chuzhoe [Russian Word, Your Own and Someone Else's], Research on Modern Russian and Sociolinguistics, Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury publ., 883 p. (in Russian).
Mayers, D. (2010), Social Psychology, 7th ed., St. Petersburg, Piter publ., 793 p. (in Russian).
Popova, T.I. (2020), Who is the Boss? - or Whose Turn is it to Speak. Russkaya Rech', Iss. 1, pp. 7-20. DOI: 10.31857/S013161170008273-9. (in Russian).
Popova, T.I. (2019), Markers of Metacommunication in Different Social Roles of the Speaker: on the Material of Pragmatic Annotation of Corpus Data. Computer Linguistics and Computing Ontologies, Vol. 3. Proceedings of the XXII International Joint Scientific Conference «Internet and Modern Society», IMS-2019, St. Petersburg, June 19-22, 2019, St. Petersburg, ITMO University publ., pp. 5060. DOI: 10.17586/2541-9781-2019-3-50-60. (in Russian).
Popova, T.I. (2018), Frequency lists as a mean of searching linguistic correlatesof social roles of the speaker. BSUbulletin. Philosophy, No. 2. Philology, pp. 33-41. DOI: 10.18101/1994-0866-2018-2-2-33-41. (in Russian).
Tannen, D. (1996), You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, Moscow, Veche publ., 429 p. (in Russian).
Zaides, K.D. (2017a), Dzhentl'meny predpochitayut voprosy: metakommunikativy v rechi predstavitelei raznykh sotsial'nykh grupp [Gentlemen Prefer Questions: Metacommunicative in the Speech of Different Social Groups]. Russkaya filo-logiya. 28 [Russian Fililogy. 28], Tartu, pp. 271-275. (in Russian).
Zaides, K.D. (2017b), Metakommunikatsiya v russkoi ustnoi spontannoi rechi [Meta-communication in Russian Spontaneous Speech], Master's Thesis, St. Perers-burg, 239 p. (in Russian).
Zemskaya, E.A., Kitaigorodskaya, M.A., Rozanova, N.N. (2015), Osobennosti muzhs-koi i zhenskoi rechi [Features of Male and Female Speech]. Zemskaya, E.A. (ed.) Yazyk kak deyatel'nost' [Language as an Activity], Monograph, Moscow, Flinta publ., pp. 563-645. (in Russian).
Zubenko, Ya.V. (2020), Gender mainstreaming in female narration. Communication Studies (Russia), Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 641-658. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2020.7(3).641-658. (in Russian).
ФУНКЦИЯ МЕТАКОММУНИКАТИВНЫХ МАРКЕРОВ В РУССКОЯЗЫЧНОЙ КОММУНИКАЦИИ (СОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТ)
Т.И. Попова
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет (Санкт-Петербург, Россия)
Аннотация: Рассматривается использование прагматических маркеров метаком-муникации в тендерном аспекте и с учетом социальных ролей говорящего. Источником материала послужил корпус русского языка повседневного общения «Один речевой день», разработанный на основе расшифровок аудиозаписей, полученных в естественных условиях. Объем выборки составляет около 200 тыс. словоупотреблений. В ней представлены эпизоды «речевых дней» 15 женщин и 15 мужчин трех возрастных групп. Информанты выступали в различных социальных ролях, противопоставленных по принципу симметричности / асимметричности. Прагматическое аннотирование материала показало, что в речи женщин метакоммуникация используется чаще, даже с учетом общей активности метакоммуникации в повседневном общении. При этом мужчины используют маркеры такого типа (слушай / давай сегодня / (м...м) в тишине проведём день, потом на голодный желудок её лучше не есть / знаешь) с конкретными речевыми задачами, например как форму отказа (слушай /у меня нет денег), а в речи женщин вариативность метакоммуникативных маркеров представлена шире, но функционального разнообразия при этом не наблюдается. Одной из особенностей русскоязычного общения является тенденция к сотрудничеству и поддержанию диалога в женской речи. С точки зрения феминистской лингвистики эта особенность непосредственно связана с вопросами зависимого положения женщины, поскольку фиксирует ее пассивность и привычку уступать. Так, в некоторых этнических группах существует особая форма языка, которая используется только женщинами. Однако следует отметить, что более половины обнаруженных употреблений принадлежат речи женщин стар-
шей возрастной группы (от 55 лет), которые общаются с близкими и подругами, в то время как в речи представителей молодежи прагматический ме-такоммуникативный маркер приобретает полифункциональность и выступает еще и как маркер старта.
Ключевые слова: социолингвистика, тендерная лингвистика, корпусная лингвистика, устная речь, лингвистическая относительность, прагматический маркер, метакоммуникация, русскоязычная коммуникация.
Для цитирования:
Попова Т.И. Функция метакоммуникативных маркеров в русскоязычной коммуникации (социолингвистический аспект) // Коммуникативные исследования. 2021. Т. 8. № 3. С. 454-464. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(3).454-464. (На англ. яз.).
Сведения об авторе:
Попова Татьяна Ивановна, аспирант филологического факультета
Контактная информация:
Почтовый адрес: 199034, Россия, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 11
E-mail: tipopova13@gmail.com
Финансирование:
Исследование выполнено при поддержке гранта РФФИ № 17-29-09175 «Диагностические признаки социолингвистической вариативности повседневной русской речи (на материале звукового корпуса)»
Дата поступления статьи: 19.03.2021
Дата рецензирования: 17.04.2021
Дата принятия в печать: 20.07.2021
