Vocative as a Marker of Politeness Category Expression

  • Authors

    • Alla Bolotnikova
    • Nadiya Balandina
    • . .
    • . .
    2018-10-13
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.8.27455
  • category of politeness, communicative intention, negative politeness, positive politeness, pragmema, presupposition, strategy, tactics, vocative as a marker of politeness.

  • The article focuses on the analysis of grammatical markers of politeness category expression. The object of the study is fragments of texts, which include expression of politeness; the subject is politeness category grammatical markers, their communicative-pragmatic features and varieties. The role of grammar in the expression of politeness has been substantiated in linguistics; vocative as a marker of politeness has been determined and inventoried; communicative-pragmatic potential of vocative as the politeness category expression and the verbalization mechanism of positive and negative politeness strategies have been described.

    It has been found out that politeness is a communicative-pragmatic category intended to regulate the communication process and to promote formation of harmonious, benevolent and parity relationships with the help of specific linguistic means, in particular grammatical ones. The focus is on the theoretical aspects of the study. The role of politeness category in the communication process and its linguistic and pragmatic features is revealed. It has been found out that politeness is realized through a complex system of strategies and tactics aimed at achieving effective communication.

    Vocative case expresses the importance of drawing and keeping attention. The speaker’s ability to control the communicative process by means of the vocative case through the mediation of the speaker is determined, implementing a pragmatic strategy of influence on the intellectual, volitional and emotional spheres of the addressee. Distant and contact vocatives are highlighted in a number of word forms. Their use in accordance with the implementation of positive and negative politeness strategies and communicative-pragmatic presupposition is grounded.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Arutiunova ND, Predlozheniye i ego smysl: leksiko-semanticheskiye problemy, Moskva, Nauka, (1976), 383 p.

      [2] Arutiunova ND, Yazyk i mir cheloveka, Moskva, Shkola Yazyki russkoi kultury, (1998), 896 p.

      [3] Balandina NF Funktsii i znachennya cheskih pragmatychnyh klishe v komunikatyvnomu konteksti, Kyiv, ASMI, (2002), 332 p.

      [4] Bogdan S, Movnyi etyket ukraintsiv: tradytsii i suchasnist. Kyiv, Ridna mova, (1998), 475 p.

      [5] Vykhovanets IR, Systema vidminkiv ukrainskoi movy, Kyiv, Naukova dumka, (1987), 231 p.

      [6] Goldin VE, Obrashcheniya: teoreticheskie problemy, Moskva, Knizhnyi dom LIBROKOM, (2009), 136 p.

      [7] Goldin VE, Etiket i rech, Saratov, Izd-vo Saratovskogo un-ta, (1978), 112 p.

      [8] Epishkin NI, Istoricheskiy slovar gallitsizmov russkogo yazyka, Moskva, (2010). URL: http://gallicismes.fcademic.ru/16471. (last visit: 15.08.2018).

      [9] Espersen O, Filosofiya grammatiki, Moskva : Izd-vo inostr. lit., (1958), 404 p.

      [10] Kornovenko LV, Zvertannia u pragmalingvistychnomu aspekti (na materiali suchasnoi rosiiskoi movy), Kyiv, (2001), 21 p.

      [11] Kostusiak NM, Mezhov OG, â€Semantyko-syntaksychni oznaky klychnoho vidminkaâ€, XII Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po funktsionalnoy lingvistike «Funktsionalizm kak osnova lingvisticheskih issledovaniy», Simferopol, (2005), pp. 159–161.

      [12] Krongauz MA, â€Obrashchenie kak sposob modelirovaniya kommunikativnogo prostranstvaâ€, Logicheskiy analiz yazyka. Obraz cheloveka v kulture i yazyke, Moskva, (1999), pp. 124–134.

      [13] Kucherenko IK, â€Vokatyv yak vyraznyk funktsionalnoho chlena rechennia i tak zvane zvertanniaâ€, Aktualni problemy gramatyki, Lviv, Svit, (2003), pp. 114–127.

      [14] Larina TV, Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil kommunikatsii. Sopostavlenie angliyskih i russkih lingvokulturnyh traditsiy, Moskva, Rukopisnyie pamyatniki Drev. Rusi, (2009), 512 p.

      [15] Mironyuk OM, Istoriia ukrainskoho movnoho etyketu. Zvertannia, Kyiv, Logos, (2006), 167 p.

      [16] Peshkovskiy AM, Russkiy sintaksis v nauchnom osveshchenii, Moskva, Uchpedgiz, (1956), 451 p.

      [17] Pigalev AI, Kulturologiya. Volgograd. URL: http://teligor.narod.ru/books/pigalev/culture2 (last visit: 17.08.2018).

      [18] Rusanivskyi VM, Struktura ukrainskoho diieslova, Kyiv, Naukova dumka, (1971), 315 p.

      [19] Skab MS, Gramatyka apelyatsii v ukrainskii movi, Chernivsi, Misto, (2002), 272 p.

      [20] Teleki MM, Shinkaruk VD, Sotsialni katehorii modusu v tekstah epistoliarnogo zhanru, Kyiv, Vydavnytstvo MDGU Imeni Petra Mohyly, (2007), 176 p.

      [21] Tymchenko EK, Vokatyv i Instrumental v ukrainskii movi, Kyiv, Z drukarni UAN, (1926), 118 p.

      [22] Fedorova LL, â€Mehanizmy izmeneniya distantsii v rechevom vzaimodeystviiâ€, Moskovskiy lingvisticheskiy zhurnal, Vol.7, No.2, (2003), pp. 21–40.

      [23] Formanovskaya NI, Rechevoe vzaimodeystvie: kommunikatsiya i pragmatika, Moskva, IKAR, (2007), 480 p.

      [24] Shkitska I, â€Manipuliatyvnyi potentsial zvertan – zahalnyh nazvâ€, Naukovi zapysky Ternopilskoho nats. ped. un-tu, Ternopil, TNPU, (2011), pp. 58–68.

      [25] Shkitska IY, â€Pryiomy posylennia vplyvovoi funktsii zvertanâ€, Lingvistychni doslidzhennia, Kharkiv, HNPU im. G. S. Skovorody, Vol.31, (2011), pp. 104–110.

      [26] Yahnich MA, Ionova SV, â€Obrashchenie kak proyavlenie rechevoy kultury v internet-kommunikatsiiâ€, Ekologiya yazyka i kommunikativnaya praktika, No.1, (2013), pp. 246–256.

      [27] Brown P, Levinson S, Politeness: Some Universals in Language, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1987), 345 p. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012470116

      [28] Brown R, Gilman A, The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity, London, New York, Pinter Publishers, (1960), 137 p.

      [29] Gonda J, Selected Studies: Indo-European linguistics, Leiden, Vol.1, (1975), 545 p.

      [30] Grybosiowa A, â€Formy â€ty†i â€pan (-i)†w kontaktah spolechnyhâ€, Poradnik jezykovy, Vol.2, (1990), pp. 88–92.

      [31] Levinas E, Caloshch i nieskonchonnoshch. Esej o zewnetzhnoshchi, Warszawa, Vydavnictvo Naukove PVN, (2002), 227 p.

      [32] Marcjanik M, Gzhechnoshch w komunikacji jezykovej, Warszawa, Vydavnictvo Naukove PVN, (2007), 166 p.

      [33] Marcjanik M, Mowimy upzhejmie. Poradnik jezykovego savoir-vivre’u, Warszawa, Vydavnictvo Naukove PVN, (2009), 235 p.

      [34] Ozhug K, â€Zvroty gzhechnoshciove współczesnej Polshchyzny muvionej (na materiale jezyka muvionego mieshkancuv Krakova)â€, Zeshyty Naukove Universytetu Jagiellonskiego CM XIII, Prace Jezykoznavche, No.98, Krakuv, (1990), 92 p. https://doi.org/10.3986/jz.v20i1.3008

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Bolotnikova, A., Balandina, N., ., ., & ., . (2018). Vocative as a Marker of Politeness Category Expression. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.8), 759-764. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.8.27455