UDC

81’27

DOI

10.37482/2227-6564-V017

Authors

Mariya Yu. Rossikhina
National Research University Higher School of Economics; ul. Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-8219 e-mail: rosmira@yandex.ru
Inna I. Ikatova
Bryansk State Academician I.G. Petrovski University; ul. Bezhitskaya 14, Bryansk, 241036, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7816-6535 e-mail: Ikatova_Inna@mail.ru

Abstract

This article explores the pragmatic rules behind social norms in the speech acts of requesting with low degree of imposition in Russian linguoculture. The brief review of the findings in previous research on linguistic politeness governing any social interaction shows that the scholars’ attempts to evaluate politeness and work out prescriptive norms that define polite behaviour resulted in failure to produce a universal concept of linguistic politeness. Numerous interpretative methods, on the one hand, widen research opportunities, whereas on the other hand, bring about inconclusive results. Such abundance of theoretical and methodological structures makes linguists choose key concept definitions, data and research methods with great care and in certain cases modify them. This paper views politeness as appropriate verbal behaviour and analyses it within the framework of the pragmalinguistic and sociocultural analysis, which takes into consideration both the speaker’s communicative goals and the hearer’s verbal response. Since any interaction is determined by numerous details of context, and individualized speech complicates uncovering general pragmatic principles behind the practice of social speech, the authors studied standard formulaic expressions used by speakers with more or less equal social status in typical everyday situations. Socially acceptable speech formulas in these contexts demonstrated certain pragmatic characteristics; being conscious of them enhances one’s cross-cultural understanding and tolerance. Since these formulas are easily recognized, their uniform perception is ensured; they are rational, intentional and have an illocution of politeness, thus reducing positive and negative face threats for both interactants.

Keywords

linguistic politeness, requests, sociolinguistic analysis, pragmalinguistic analysis, initiation of verbal interaction, Russian linguoculture, conversational speech formulas

References

1. Larina T.V. Kategoriya vezhlivosti v angliyskoy i russkoy kommunikativnykh kul’turakh [The Category of
Politeness in English and Russian Communicative Cultures]. Moscow, 2003. 315 p.
2. Formanovskaya N.I. Russkiy rechevoy etiket: normativnyy sotsiokul’turnyy kontekst [Russian Speech Etiquette: Normative Sociocultural Context]. Moscow, 2002. 160 p.
3. Brown P., Levinson S.C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, 1987. 345 p.
4. Grice H. Logic and Conversation. Cole P., Morgan J.L. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York, 1975, pp. 41–58.
5. Lakoff R. The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your p’s and q’s. 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, 1973, pp. 291–306.
6. Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics. New York, 1983. 250 p.
7. Arndt H., Janney R.W. Politeness Revisited: Cross-Modal Supportive Strategies. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach., 1985, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 281–300.
8. Fraser B., Nolen W. The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form. Int. J. Sociol. Lang., 1981, vol. 27, pp. 93–109.
9. O’Keefe D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Newbury Park, 1990. 270 p.
10. Watts R.J. Politeness. Cambridge, 2003, 320 p.
11. Meier A.J. Defining Politeness: Universality in Appropriateness. Lang. Sci., 1995, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 345–356.
12. Haugh M. The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative. J. Politeness Res., 2007, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 295–317.
13. Prokhorov Yu.E., Sternin I.A. Russkie: kommunikativnoe povedenie [Russians: Communicative Behaviour]. Moscow, 2006. 326 p.
14. Blum-Kulka S., Olshtain E. Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Appl. Linguist., 1984, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 196–213.
15. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge, 1987. 459 p.