Abstract:
Communicative tonality is introduced in terms of the utterance style that expresses the speaker’s opinion on the topic, assessment of interpersonal relations with the partner, in a pair with self-presentation in converse acts. It specifies the utterance proposition with the language means that are to transfer thoughtful, contemptuous, adverse, facetious, ironical, other emotional shades of speech. The research explores the notion of communicative tonality and methodology of its study in the theory of discourse and Cross-Cultural communication; examines the communicative tonality of prohibition as an aspect of pragmatic stylistics of communication; specifies its linguistic means in English-related tradition of educative converse. We propose that communicative tonality in the situation of prohibition is stylistically flexible and assembles symbolic obstacles or restrictions in a child’s conduct. Aimed at educative socializing goals, in traditional English converse communicative tonality of prohibition is characterized by dynamic unity of prohibiting genre conventions with paternalism and/or liberal-and-democratic mitigation tactics or authoritative intensification, variability of direct and indirect volition pressure acts. Mitigation in prohibition is achieved with modal verbal predicates and conditional syntactic constructions of utterances that are used by adults to explain reasons of banning or refusal. Signifying the status, the adult gives reasonable arguments, describes psychological states of sadness or disappointment. The alternations of thoughtful and friendly tonality make provision for variability of vertical and horizontal vectors of social distance while communicating with a child. Intensification of authoritativeness is marked by speech acts of strict banning, refusal, objections, which point to vertical vector of excessive control.
Keywords: pragmatics, communicative tonality, educative discourse, speech act, prohibition, mitigation, intensification
For citation: Ilyinova E.Yu., Tsinkerman T.N. Pragmatics of Communicative Tonality in Prohibiting Acts in English Educative Converse. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 3, pp. 52–62 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Elena Yu. Ilyinova¹*, Tamara N. Tsinkerman²
¹,²Volgograd State University,
100 Universitetsky avenue, Volgograd, Russian Federation, 400062;
¹ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3310-4020; Researcher ID: A-6152-2017;
²ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0258-974X; Researcher ID: Y-3926-2018
*e-mail: ilynov@volsu.ru
References:
1. Karasik VI. Language matrix of culture. Moscow: Gnozis; 2013. (In Russ.).
2. Karasik VI. Language plastic communication: monograph. Volgograd: Paradigma; 2017. (In Russ.).
3. Shakhovskiy VI. Alterations in the worldview and the dynamics of language and speech practice. Science journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2015;1(25):7–20. Available from: DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu 2.2015.1.1.
4. Olyanich AV. Presentation of discourse theory. Moscow: Gnozis; 2007. (In Russ.).
5. Astafurova TN., Olyanich AV. Semiolinguistics of protective communication. Science journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2019; 3 (18): 172–181. Available from: DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2019.3.14.
6. Lenets AV., Ovsienko TV., Eksuzian AS. Discursive construction of national identity in the German language new year’s address. Current issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021; 1: 73–83. Available from: DOI: https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2021-1-73-83.
7. Buzinova LM. Language identity: Russian and German teacher. Moscow: Sputnik; 2020. (In Russ.).
8. Leontovich OA. The all-seeing eye of the city from the perspective of urban communication studies. Science journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2018;4(17):206–213. Available from: DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.4.20.
9. Chen Fachun, Leontovich OA. A tale of two cities: historical narratives in the Russian and Chinese urban landscapes. Science journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2020; 2 (19): 78–85. Available from: DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.2.7.
10. Karasik VI. Language keys. Moscow: Gnozis; 2009. (In Russ.).
11. Karasik VI., Slyshkin GG. Modern discourse developmental trends. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021; 1: 14–31. Available from: DOI: https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2021-1-14-31.
12. Karasik VI. Discourse Manifestation of Personality. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2016;4(20):56–77. Available from: DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-56-77.
13. Dementev VV. The theory of speech genres. Moscow: Znak; 2010. (In Russ.)
14. Tupikova SE. Notion of communicative tonality (modality and tonality). Science journal of Tambov State University. 2010;1(81):247-251. Avilable from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ponyatie-kommunikativnoy-tonalnosti-modalnost-i-tonalnost/. Accessed 19th JUN 2021.
15. Kitaygorodskaya MV., Rosanova NN. Muscovites’ speech: communicative and cultural aspect. Moscow: Russkie slovari; 1999. (In Russ.).
16. Fedosuk MU. Research of means of speech influence and the theory of speech genres. Speech of genres. 1997;1:66-87. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/contents.asp?id=36422397. Accessed 19th JUN 2021.
17. Karasik VI. Communicative key. Science journal of North Ossetian State University n.a. KL. Khetagurov. 2008;4:20-29. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12517568. Accessed 19th JUN 2021.
18. Baghdasaryan TO. Tonality as a component of the speech genre model (based on the “threat” speech genre). Speech of genres. 2002; 3: 240-245. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36393606. Accessed 19th JUN 2021.
19. Matveeva TM. Learner’s Dictionary: Russian language, speech culture, stylistics, rhetorics. Moscow: Flinta; 2019. (In Russ.).
20. Ilyinova EYu., Tsinkerman TN. Pragmatics of communicative tonality in the stylistics of English educative discourse. Science journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2019; 1(18): 146–158. Available from: DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2019.1.12.
21. Аpresyan YuD., Аpresyan VYu., Babaeva EG., Boguslavskaya OYu. And others. To forbid. General eds. by Аpresyan YuD. New explanatory dictionary of synonyms of Russian. Second issue. corrected and augmented. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture; 2003: 361- 366. (In Russ.).
22. Thirkell A. High Rising. L.: Virago Modern Classic; 2014.
23. Billstrom D. You Can’t Go To School Naked. Penguins Group New York, USA; 2008.
24. Wolf Anthony E. I’d listen to my parents if they’d just shut up. What to Say and Not Say When Paren-ting Teens. Harper, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney; 2011.
25. Chocolat. Miramax Lionsgate, 2011.