Прагматика та семантика мовного акту прохання

Содержание:INTRODUCTION 4 CHAPTER ONE. WAYS OF EXPRESSING REQUEST IN MODERN ENGLISH 6 1.1. Direct vs. indirect strategies 7 1.2. The two types of indirect strategies 8 Conclusions to Chapter One 10 CHAPTER TWO. PRAGMATICS AND SEMANTICS OF THE SPEECH ACT OF REQUEST 12 2.1. Semantic Peculiarities of Speech Acts of Requests 12 2.2. Pragmatic Peculiarities of Speech Acts of Requests 15 Conclusions to Chapter Two 25 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 27 RESUME 29 LITERATURE CITED 30 LIST OF ILLUSTRATION MATERIALS 32 APPENDIX 33  

Вступление:Topicality of the research: The problem of speech acts has got a great theoretical meaning for analysis of the form/function relation in language: the same form performs more than one function. To generate a speech act of request, the speaker has to use qualitatively different types of knowledge, both linguistic and extralinguistic (interactive and encyclopaedic), as well as the ability to reason. The aim of the investigation is to study the ways of expressing the request in Modern English. The tasks of the research: ? to analyze the theories on speech acts; ? to examine the phenomenon of the speech act and its components: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts; ? to define the speech act of request; ? to study direct and indirect strategies of requests; ? to analyze lexical means of expressing requests in English; ? to analyze the frequency of usage of request strategies; ? to provide examples of speech acts of request in Modern English. The object of the research is the functioning of the speech act of request in Modern English. The subject of the study is the strategies and lexical means expressing the speech act of request in Modern English. The theoretical value of the investigation lies in the fact that it is impossible to reach a high level of linguistic competence without understanding the nature of speech acts of request and knowing typical speech acts of requests of a particular language. The practical value of the graduation thesis: the results of the research may be used in the compiling the lectures on the pragmatics, in the course of practical language teaching and for further scientific investigation of the problem under study. Selected examples from works of fiction containing speech acts of request serve as the material for our research. Methods of the research include the critical analysis of scientific works on the subject, analysis of lexical units representing requests according to request strategies in the examples selected from the works of fiction. The investigation consists of the Introduction, Chapter I “Ways of Expressing Request in Modern English”, Chapter II “Pragmatics and Semantics of the Speech Act of Request”, General Conclusions, the List of Literature Used and the Appendix. In the Introduction we touch upon the problem of our scientific investigation, formulate the aim and the main tasks of the research, point to its topicality, theoretical and practical value of the master thesis, indicate the methods being used. The first chapter “Theoretical Prerequisites of the Investigation” reflects the theoretical basis of our investigation. The second chapter “Ways of Expressing Request in Modern English” is dedicated to the analysis of the ways of expressing request, i.e. lexical means and strategies. In the Conclusions the results of the investigation are summed up.  

Выводы:One of the most powerful theoretical conceptions behind current research in pragmatics is the idea that a theory of linguistic communication is really only a special case of a general theory of human action. According to this view, the various linguistic subdisciplines such as phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics should be regarded as the studies of different abstract aspects of underlying communicative actions. Explanation of variation within each subdiscipline should preferably be functional, i.e. it should relate the properties of the phenomenon being examined to the function of a communicative action as a whole. If this task could be accomplished, the functionalist claim is that linguistic theory would simultaneously achieve both increased exhaustiveness and greater internal coherence and simplicity. A precondition for success in this enterprise is the establishment of a conceptual framework for the description of action, with enough internal structure to make possible an account of the relationship between linguistic phenomena and action with sufficient detail to be convincing. Two of the most important contributions to the creation of such a framework have been made by Austin 1962 and Searle 1969. Austin’s “How to do things with words” (1962) is a work which was published posthumously by Austin's students and can therefore not be regarded as fully representative of Austin's views had he been given time to finish his work. Austin proposed a number of distinctions which have inspired a substantial amount of research on language use during the past 25 years. Among other things, Austin suggests that we should distinguish the locutionary aspect of an utterance from its illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects. To be more precise, Austin claims that in uttering a sentence, one concomittantly produces three acts: a locutionary, an illocutionary and a perlocutionary act. Searle, in his theoretical study, distinguishes five basic speech acts: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations. He defines ‘directives’, the most studied major category, as ‘attempts by the speakers to get the hearer to do something’. The verbs that evoke this category, according to him, are ‘ask’, ‘order’, ‘command’, ‘request’, ‘beg’, ‘plead’, ‘pray’, ‘entreat’, as well as ‘invite’, ‘permit’, and ‘advise’. Scholars identify nine strategy types in requests ranging from most to least direct, mood derivables being the most direct and mild hints the least, as in the following: mood derivable; performatives; hedged performatives; obligation statements; want statements; suggestory formulae; query preparatory; strong hints; mild hints. As to the lexical level of the request, the sentences are formed according to the established patterns using certain lexemes –indicators. The lexeme please is one of the most common words that occur in the request. The phrase will you…/won’t you? introduces the interrogative speech act anticipating the receiving of the agreement or rejection to perform the action. Would you (be so kind) …is used as an introductory hint at the addresser’s need in the addressee’s performance of the action. It already contains approval in the case of the positive achievement of the communicative aim. The phrase It would be great if… is an introductory indication of the approval for the possible performance of the action. The phrases I want you to/ I need you to… possess the explicit denotation that directly indicates the addresser’s wish that the addressee has to perform or not to perform an action. The directive speech acts of request are grouped around the set of lexemes with the nucleous word ask, that serve as the direct indicators of the request: appeal, apply, beg, beseech, bespeak, call for, charge, claim, command, contend for, crave, demand, desire, entreat, file for, hit, hit up for, hold out for, implore, impose, inquire, petition, plead, pray, promote, put in for, request, requisition, seek, solicit, supplicate, order, urge. These lexemes used out of the speech act of request ( in the author’s words) serve as the indication of the speech act of the request that occurred previously.  

Литература:1. Austin J. How to do things with words / J. Austin. ? Press, 1962. ? London : Oxford University Press, 1962. 2. Bach K. Linguistic communication and Speech Acts/ K. Bach, M. Harnish. ? Cambridge : The MIT Press, 1979. 3. Becker J. Children’s strategic use of requests to mark and manipulate social status / J/Becker // S. Kuczaj II (ed.) Language Development: Language, Thought and Culture. ? Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982. – P. 1–35. 4. Blum-Kulka S. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?/ S. Blum-Kulka // Journal of Pragmatics 11, 1987. ? pp. 131–46. 5. Blum-Kulka S. Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness / S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper // Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. ? Norwood, NJ : Ablex, 1989. – pp. 37–70. 6. Blum-Kulka S. Requests and apologies: A crosscultural study of speech act realization patterns / S. Blum-Kulka, E. Olshtain // (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5. – 1984. – pp. 196–213. 7. Brown P. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage / P. Brown, S. Levinson. ? Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1987. 8. Clark H. Responding to indirect speech acts / H. Clark // Cognitive Psychology 11. – 1979. ? pp. 430–477. 9. Dore J. The structure of nursery school conversation / J. Dore, M. Gearhart, D. Newman // K. Nelson (ed.) Children’s Language. ? New York : Gardner Press, 1978. – pp. 337–95. 10. Fraser B. Hedged Performatives / B. Fraser // P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. ? New York : Academic Press, 1975. 11. Ellis R. Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners’ requests/R. Ellis//Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 1–23. – 1992. – pp. 187–210. 12. Ervin-Tripp S. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives / S. Ervin-Tripp // Language in Society 5.– 1976. – pp. 25–66. 13. Ervin-Tripp S. Wait for me, roller skate! / S. Ervin-Tripp // S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds) Child Discourse. ? New York : Academic Press, 1977. – pp. 165–88. 14. Gibbs R. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? / R. Gibbs // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9. – 1983. – pp. 524–533. 15. Gordon D. The structure of children’s requests / D. Gordon, S. Ervin-Tripp // R. L. Schiefelbusch and J. Pickar (eds) The Acquisition of Communicative Competence. ? Baltimore, MD : University Park Press, 1984. – pp. 295–321. 16. Hernandez L.P. Grounding, semantic motivation and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts / L.P. Hernandez, F. Mendoza // Journal of Pragmatics 34. – 2002. ? pp. 259 – 284. 17. Holtgraves T. Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactions who use them / T. Holtgraves // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 1986. – pp. 305–314. 18. House J. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language / J. House, G. Kasper // W.W. Lörscher and R. Schulze (eds) Perspectives on Language in Performance, vol. 2. ? Tobingen : Narr, 1987. – pp. 1250–1288. 19. Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics / G.Leech. ? New York : Longman Singapore Publishing, 1983. 20. Levinson S. C. Pragmatics / S.C.Levinson. ? Cambridge : Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1983. 21. Mey J.L. Pragmatics: an introduction / J.L. Mey. ? Oxford : Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000. 22. Schiffrin D. Approaches to Discourse / D. Schiffrin. ? Oxford : Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1994. 23. Searle J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language / J. Searle. ? Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1969. 24. Searle J. Indirect speech acts / J. Searle // P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. ? New York : Academic Press, 1975. – pp. 59–82. 25. Searle J. Speech Acts / J. Searle. ? London : Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1976. 26. Searle J. Expression and meaning / J. Searle. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1 979. 27. Searle J. Meaning and Speech Acts / J. Searle // The Philosophical Review 71. – 1962. ? pp. 423 – 432. 28. Thomas J. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics / J. Thomas. – London : Longman Group Limited, 1995. 29. Walters J. The perception of politeness in English and Spanish / J. Walters // C. Yorio, K. Peters and J. Schachter (eds) On TESOL ‘79: The Learner in Focus Washington, DC : TESOL. ? 1979. – pp. 288–96. 30. Yule G. Pragmatics / G. Yule. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1998. 31. Brown D. Angels and Demons / D. Brown. ? New York : Pocket Books, 2000. – 937 p. 32. Carey G. I Believe / G. Carey. – London : SPCK, 1991. – 325 p.