Abstract:
The study analyzes the main contamination mechanisms of personal and institutional components in the process of forming a common illocutionary space of counter-communicators in the conditions of borderline communication of social work discourse. The basis for creating a common sphere of goal-setting is not only the intention of agents and clients to ensure the realization of the dominant goal, but also the presence of a conventionalizing “tertiary agent” (tertiariis agens), which contributes to the constant comparison of their own communicative actions with model samples. As part of the description of the strategies and tactics of consolidation, based on the discursive-modus analysis, not only the key speech-actual characteristics of the harmonization of communication are revealed, but also the interpretive potential of verbalizers of personal illocution elements that do not correspond to the situation of normalized semiosis. For the formation of the card index, the most representative, in terms of the constant change of the coding register, the borderline discourse of social work was chosen.
The result of the analysis is a list of the most effective speech acts of direct and hidden implementation of access to the control of discourse development vectors: commissives, promises, declaratives, metacommunicative phatic markers, as well as menasives with a modified illocution as causatives. The contamination of illocutionary spaces occurs on the basis of conditional institutionality with a priori acceptance of the criterion of “equalizing” agents and clients. Agent-client interaction is implemented in similar strategies and tactics for initiating key values; harmonization is achieved by reducing conflict potential during the transformation of the usual functional load. The regulatory potential of tertiariis agens, provided by the presence of conventionalization prototexts, contributes to the reduction of intimization entropy by creating a synergistic goal-setting vector and transforming the countercommunicator’s illocution.
Keywords: borderline discourse, institutional and personal components, collective illocution, speech act specificity, social work discourse, tertiariis agens, intimization entropy.
For citation: Bredikhina Yu.I. Contamination Mechanisms of a Common Illocutionary Space Forming. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2023, no 3, pp. 18–28. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2023-3-18-28 (In Russ.).
Bionote:
Yulia I. Bredikhina
Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute University;
417 A Lenin Str., Stavropol, Russian Federation, 355017;
1ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0743-865X;
Web of Science Researcher ID: IAM-7941-2023;
e-mail: bredichinajulia@yandex.ru
References:
1. Vorkachev SG, Vorkacheva EA. Discourse and Its Typology in Russian Linguistics. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2019; 3: 14-21. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079–6021-2019-3-14-21. (In Russ.).
2. Alifanova OG. Communicative Situation of Agreement as a Model of Successful Communication. Pedagogical Education in Russia. 2015; 10: 103-109. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/variant-kommunikativnoy-situatsii-soglasie-kak-model-uspeshnogo-ko.... Accessed May 15, 2023. (In Russ.).
3. Imatova MK. The Concept of Discourse in Modern Linguistics. Current Issues and Prospects for the Development of Scientific Research. 2022; 105: 200-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.51582/interconf. 19-20.04.2022.019. (In Eng.).
4. Boldonova IS. Interpersonal Dialogue: Oral and Written Discourses. Vestnik of the M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University. 2009; 6 (3): 120-124. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mezhlichnostnyy-dialog-ustnyy-i-pismennyy-diskursy?ysclid=lh7jpnp7.... Accessed May 15, 2023. (In Russ.).
5. Litvishko OM, Shiryaeva TA, Tikhonova EV, Kosycheva MA. Professional Discourse: The Verbal and Visual Semiosis Interplay. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2022; 8 (1): 19-40. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-1-0-2. (In Eng.).
6. Tameryan TY, Zheltukhina MR, Anikejeva IG, Arkhipenko NA, Soboleva EI, Skuybedina ON. Language Explication of the Conceptualized Meanings in Ethno-Cultural and Socio-Political Aspects of Discourse. OPTION. 2020; 36 (26 Special Edition): 456-475. Available at: https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/opcion/article/view/31725/32987. Accessed May 15, 2023. (In Eng.).
7. Bredikhin SN, Bredikhina YuI. Proto-Roles in the Meaning Components Actualization in the Utterance Noematic Structure (Based on the Borderline Social Work Discourse). Cognitive Studies of Language. 2018; 34: 357-360. (In Russ.).
8. Bredikhin S, Bredikhina Yu, Serebriakova S, Marchenko T. Levels of communication act: functional communicative features of social work institutional discourse. SHS Web of Conferences. 2018; 50: 01022. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185001022. (In Eng.).
9. Abdelhamid SA, Alefirenko NF, Chumak-Zhun II. Speech Acts and Russian Text-Generating Discourse. Russian Language Studies. 2023; 21 (1): 7-17. https://doi.org/10.22363/2618-8163-2023-21-1-7-17. (In Russ.).
10. Svetaylov BV. Use of Hedges in Russian-Language and Turkish Scientific Articles on Economics in the Aspect of the Implementation of the Neo-Gricean Principles. Russian Linguistic Bulletin. 2023; 4 (40). https://doi.org/10.18454/RULB.2023.40.33. (In Eng.).
11. Duchovicova J, Kozarova N, Kurajda L, Bajrami B, Baghana J. Level of Auditory Analysis, Synthesis and Active Vocabulary and Their Intergender Context. XLinguae. 2019; 20 (4): 229-238. https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2019.12.04.20. (In Slov.).
12. Volkov YG, Vereshchagina AV, Uzunov VV, Meskhi BB, Kartashevich EV. Social Consolidation and Models of Innovative Development of Russian Regions: the Discourse Space of Sociological Research. Revista ESPACIOS. 2020; 41 (40):7. Available at: https://revistaespacios.com/a20v41n40/a20v41n40p07.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2023. (In Eng.).
13. Suvorova E. The Principles of Inference in Discourse Comprehension. XLinguae. 2020; 13 (2): 78-91. https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2020.13.02.06. (In Eng.).
14. Edwards D, Fasulo A. “To Be Honest”: Sequential Uses of Honesty Phrases in Talk-In-Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 2006; 39 (4): 343-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1.
15. Vlasyan GR. Linguistic Hedging in the Light of Politeness Theory. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). 2018; 39: 685-690. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.98. (In Eng.).
16. Romanov A, Novoselova O. Discursive Realization of Threat in Pre-Election Communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2020; 24 (2): 419-448. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-419-448.
We recommend authors to read carefully the scope of our journal, the submission guidelines and malpractice statement. Original papers and studies developing new theoretical and applied issues are preferred. Such works are always cited, and citing your works reflects your status as a researcher.