Psycholinguistic content of complements in English and Ukrainian

Semantically related (by a way of belonging) statements are used equally by both English and Ukrainians (the difference in the results is insignificant, r=1.431, p<0.028). Such compliments are used by Englishmen: pretty - fine; brave; handsome; little; kind; intelligent; interesting; у українців: among Ukrainians they are: гарна - фантастична; таємнича - мрійлива; тактовна - чудова. Also, there is no significant difference in a case of use by two groups of respondents semantically related compliments (they are formed by the method of identity, r=1.344, p<0.030). Englishmen use such examples of compliments: nice - beautiful; smart - clever; splendid - beautiful - attractive - nice; among Ukrainians they are: турботлива - добра; щиросердечна - добра; струнка - граціозна; бездоганна - приваблива - гармонійна; зроблена - мила - ніжна; блаженна - природна; дивна - чудова; мініатюрна - струнка. Statistically significant at the level p<0.05 of significance of differences in results is the difference in the frequency of use of semantically similar compliments, which are most often used by Ukrainians: мила - чарівна; непереборна - неповторна; енергійна - запальна; безкорислива - безпосередня; життєрадісна - усмішлива; чесна - щиросердна. Ukrainians also use more semantically related compliments, formed by the way of logical adjectivation (r=3.425, p<0.01). Examples of such compliments are: розумна - незабутня; сліпуча - жагуча; фантастична - божественна; заворожлива - ангельська; пекельно божественна - яскрава; загадкова - інтригуючи; природна - скромна; дружелюбна - розуміюча; іскрометна - хвилююча; усмішлива - запальна; симпатична - казкова; сама-сама - чудесна; in English: wonderful - lovely; wise; splendid - beautiful; perfect - special; brilliant - good-looking; blooming - charming.

Formal complementary statements are mostly used by Englishmen, although the difference in results between Ukrainians and Englishmen is significant at the level of p<0.05 only for objective phonetic statements (r=2.988, p<0.05). To this group of compliments we include: good - well; nice - good; fine; well; among Ukrainians there are: добра - ніжна; чарівна - чаруюча; щиросердечна - щира; струнка - витончена; приваблива - ваблива; чудесна - чудова. Examples of stereotypical and lexical compliments in the English language are: sweet - charming; great - nice; among Ukrainians: бажана - сексуальна; жагуча - яскрава; божественна - пекельно божественна; пригарна - звабна; витончена - граціозна; весела - енергійна; щира - щиросердна (Table 3).

Also quite interesting there are results of syntagmatic complementary statements. Thus, word combinations are much more often used by Englishmen (r=3.471, p<0.01), while sentences are used by Ukrainians (r=3.492, p<0.01).

Table 3. The results of the frequency of use the methods of explication of compliments by representatives of Ukrainian and English ethnic groups

In order to highlight the psycholinguistic features of the explication of compliments in English and Ukrainian, the procedure of correlation analysis was used. The results are shown by Fig. 1, 2.

Fig. 1. Correlation of the ways of explication the compliments by respondents of Ukrainian ethnic group (in points, according to the results of correlation analysis) Fig. 2. Correlation of the ways of explication the compliments by respondents of English ethnic group (in points, according to the results of correlation analysis)

Symbols:

The ways of explication of compliments:

- objective phonetic;

- stereotypical and lexical;

- semantically similar;

- semantically related (by the way of belonging);

- semantically related (by the way of identity);

- semantically related (by the way of logical adjectivation);

- emotionally evaluative;

- creative;

- syntactical constructions (phrases);

- syntactical constructions (sentences);

- correlation is significant on the level 0.01 of the significance of differences

of the results;

- correlation is significant on the level 0.05 of the significance of differences of the results.

According to our results, among the respondents of the Ukrainian ethnic group we diagnosed the largest number of positive correlations between:

the way of the explication of compliments in a form of a sentence and: syntactic constructions (phrases) (r=0.728, p<0.01); semantically related compliments formed by the way of identity (r=0.720, p<0.01); creative compliments (r=0.711, p<0.01);

semantically related compliments formed by the way of logical adjectivation and: semantically related compliments formed by the way of identity (r=0.711, p<0.01); semantically related compliments formed by the way of belonging (r=0.314, p<0.05); creative compliments (r=0.328, p<0.05);

semantically related compliments formed by the way of identity and: semantically related compliments formed by the way of belonging (r=0.723, p<0.01); compliments, expressed in a form of a sentence (r=0.720, p<0.01); semantically related compliments formed by the way of logical adjectivation (r=0.711, p<0.01); stereotypical and lexical compliments (r=0.622, p<0.01).

Significant negative correlations were diagnosed in accordance with respondents of the Ukrainian ethnic group between:

semantically related compliments formed by the way of logical adjectivation and emotional-evaluative compliments (r=-0.408, p<0.05);

by the way of explication of compliments in a form of a sentence and objective phonetic constructions (r=-0.321, p<0.05).

In turn, the respondents of the English ethnic group had the highest number of positive correlations between:

the way of the explication of compliments in a form of phrases and: semantically similar compliments (r=0.705, p<0.01); creative compliments (r=0.701, p<0.01); stereotypical and lexical compliments (r=0.621, p<0.01); emotional and evaluative compliments (r=0.397, p<0.05); objective-phonetic constructions (r=0.355, p<0.05);

emotional and evaluative compliments and: semantically

related compliments formed by the way of identity (r=0.697, p<0.01); semantically related compliments formed by the way of logical adjectivation (r=0.612, p<0.01); semantically related compliments formed by the way of belonging (r=0.535, p<0.01); creative compliments (r=0.498, p<0.01); compliments formed by the way of explication of them in the form of a phrase (r=0.397, p<0.05).

Significant negative correlations were diagnosed in a case of respondents of the English ethnic group between:

the way of the explication of compliments in the form of phrases and sentences (r=-0.367, p<0.05);

- the way of the explication of compliments in the form of a sentence and objective-phonetic constructions (r=-0.326, p<0.05).

Conclusions

In both Ukrainian and English, a compliment is the independent, free expression, it is not the result of a request from the side of the addressee. Saying compliments, English people usually use either formulas of speech etiquette due to social norms, or expressions in the narrow sense of the word, such as emotionally evaluative expressions (therefore emotionally evaluative compliments have a fairly high level of the expression). Englishmen sincerely express their emotions by the informal compliments, which, according to our research, do not necessarily take place among people who love each other, among relatives, but this act is done solely in the interests of a speaker. In most cases, the proclamation of a complementary act is determined by a specific pragmatic situation. Therefore, only on the basis of each case from the context, which implies taking into account the goals and motives of the speaker, the nature of his/her relationships with the addressee, you can more clearly define the type of speech complementary act.

The compliments of the Ukrainian ethnic group show a certain psychological state of the addressee, they are not as strictly connected with social norms and rules as English ones. Considering the compliments having been said by the representatives of the Ukrainian ethnic group, it should be emphasized the perlocutionary effect of these expressions, because emotional and evaluative statements of representatives of the Ukrainian ethnic group play a special kind of illocutionary acts, with the aim to cause the perlocutionary effect from the side of the addressee and evaluative response.

Compliments having been said by the members of the Ukrainian ethnic group are usually constructed using logical suggestions, so when a subject says a compliment it primarily implies that he/she has certain thoughts, feelings, intentions, and his/her speech act has the aim to facilitate a certain behavior of the addressee.

Representatives of the Ukrainian ethnic group form the compliments in different ways, but the choice of one variant from several alternative structures is quite pragmatic. Complementary statements not only describe the denotative situation, but also convey the nature of the relationships between partners of the communication and show the context of the communication process itself. At the same time, the context displays the interest to Ukrainians if there is a real possibility of the speaker's influence on the semantics of statements. Even synonymous statements can be perceived quite differently: they can emphasize different aspects of situations, as well as to convey the nature of the relationships between the speaker and the addressee or to characterize the different attitudes to the content having been said, because it emphasizes the pragmatic aspect of speech.

Thus, we'll formulate the psycholinguistic features of the explication of compliments in Ukrainian and English languages. Such features are:

respondents of both Ukrainian and English ethnic groups are characterized by dominated subjective (ideosyncrasic) way of forming complementary expressions. English respondents are also dominated by emotional and evaluative way, while Ukrainians - by creative way in modeling the compliments. English people are more emotional in choosing phrases, word combinations and speech patterns that are complementary expressions, their speech is characterized by expressiveness and imagery. In turn, Ukrainians are more able to form creative expressions in their content, they form associative schemes, which, on the one hand, seem illogical, but, on the other hand, contain a creative context that enriches speech in a great degree;

semantic compliments are used equally by both English and Ukrainians, but Ukrainians use more semantically similar and semantically related compliments, as well as compliments based on the principle of logical adjectivation;

formal complementary expressions are used more by the Englishmen, in addition, they are closely related to social norms, values and ideals;

phrases are much more often used by Englishmen, while sentences are used by Ukrainians on the contrary. This indicates deeper, subjective meaning, personality oriented nature of complementary statements among the respondents of the Ukrainian ethnic group.

Our research does not touch upon all aspects of the problem field of the development of complementary statements in the paradigm of logical-semantic and emotional-evaluative organization of speech of

Ukrainian and English ethnic groups, but opens prospects for further study, for example, if we tell about the study of cognitive and expressive mechanisms of forming the philological consciousness of Englishmen and Ukrainians.

References

1. Aleksandrov, A.A., Memetova, K.S., & Stankevich, L.N. et. al. (2020). Referent's Lexical Frequency Predicts Mismatch Negativity Responses to New Words Following Semantic Training. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 187-198.

2. Alexandrov, A.A., Boricheva, D.O., Pulvermuller, F., & Shtyrov, Y. (2011). Strength of word-specific neural memory traces assessed electrophysiologically. PLoS ONE, 2-29.

3. Andrews, V. (1990). Web of Dreams. Glasgow: Collins.

4. Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 33-41.

5. Batel, E. (2020). Context Effect on L2 Word Recognition: Visual Versus Auditory Modalities. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 49, 223-245.

6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Journal of Package Version, 1(7), 1-23.

7. Beauvillain, C. (1994). Morphological structure in visual word recognition: Evidence from prefixed and suffixed words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(3), 317339.

8. Blagovechtchenski, E., Gnedykh, D., Kurmakaeva, D. et. al. (2019). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of Wernicke's and Broca's areas in studies of language learning and word acquisition. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 3759.

9. Booth, J.R., MacWhinney, B., & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development, 71(4), 981-1003.

10. Bredart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123-137.

11. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297-332.

12. Carter, D. (2015). Fatherless sons. Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House.

13. Chen, R. (1993). Responding to Compliments. A Contrastive Study of Politeness Strategies between American English and Chinese Speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(1), 49-73.

14. Cilibrasi, L., Stojanovik, V, Riddell, P., & Saddy, D. (2019). Sensitivity to Inflectional Morphemes in the Absence of Meaning: Evidence from a Novel Task. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 48, 747-767.

15. Cronin, A. (1957). The Citadel. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

16. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.

17. Bot, de K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's «speaking» model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-24.

18. Derwing, T.M., Munro, M.M., Thomson, R.I., & Rossiter, M.J. (2009). The

19. relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533-557.

20. Dijkgraaf, A., Hartsuiker, R.J., & Duyck, W. (2017). Predicting upcoming information in native-language and non-native-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(5), 917-930.

21. Ellis, J. (1991). Maison Jennie. London: Crafton.

22. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20.

23. Ferreira, F., Henderson, J.M., Anes, M.D., Weeks, P.A., & McFarlane, D.K. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving-window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 324.

24. Fodor, J.A. (1983). The Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25. Galsworthy, J. (1975). The Forsyte Saga. Book I. The Man of Property. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

26. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215-240.

27. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

28. Green, D.W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67-81.

29. Hatzidaki, A., Baus, C., & Costa, A. (2015). The way you say it, the way I feel it: Emotional word processing in accented speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 351.

30. Herbert, R.K. (1989). The Ethnography of Compliments and Compliment Responses: A Contrastive Sketch. Contrastive Pragmatics, 3-35.

31. Herbert, R.K. (1990). Sex-based Differences in Compliment Behavior. Language in Society, 19, 201-224.

32. Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System, 27, 207-221.

33. Kotlyarevskyi, I. (1982). Eneida. Poetychni tvory. Dramatychni tvory. Lysty [The Aeneid. Poetry. Dramatic stories. Letters]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

34. Lagrou, E., Hartsuiker, R.J., & Duyck, W. (2013). The influence of sentence context and accented speech on lexical access in second-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 508-517.

35. Levelt, W.J.M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41-103.

36. Lu, A., Wang, L., Guo, Y., Zeng, J. et. al. (2019). The Roles of Relative Linguistic Proficiency and Modality Switching in Language Switch Cost: Evidence from Chinese Visual Unimodal and Bimodal Bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 48, 1-18.

37. Maurier, du. D. (1978). Hungry Hill. London: Victor Gollangz LTD.

38. McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1-86.

39. Mitchel, M. (1973). Gone with the Wind. New-York: Avon Books.

40. Mykhalchuk, N., & Bihunova, S. (2019). The verbalization of the concept of «fear» in English and Ukrainian phraseological units. Cognitive Studies - Etudes cognitives, 19, 11.

41. O'Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557-581.

42. O'Donnell, J., MacGregor, L., Dabrowski, J., Oestreicher, J., & Romero, J.

43. (1994). Construct validity of neuropsychological tests of conceptual and attentional abilities. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 596-600.

44. Pilcher, R. (1992). Collection, II. London: Coronet Books.

45. Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253(5019), 530.

46. Salinger, J.D. (1982). Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

47. Schwartz, A.I., & Kroll, J.F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197-212.

48. Sgall, P. (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Prague: Academia.

49. Shaffer, P. (1984). Five Finger Exercise. Modern English Drama (pp. 33-157). Moscow: Raduga.

50. Taft, M. (2013). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hove: Psychology Press.

51. Bradford, B.T. (1990). Hold the Dream. London: Grafton Books.

52. Tereshko, L. (2019). Svitlo liubovi: virshi [The light of Love: poems]. Rivne [in Ukrainian].

53. Ullman, M.T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/ procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717-726.

54. Valis, M., Slaninova, G., Prazak, P. et. al. (2019) Impact of Learning a Foreign Language on the Enhancement of Cognitive Functions Among Healthy Older Population. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 48, 1311-1318.

55. Ware, C., Damnee, S., Djabelkhir, L. et al. (2017). Maintaining cognitive functioning in healthy seniors with a technology-based foreign language program: A pilot feasibility study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9, 42.

56. Wilde, O. (1961). Plays. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

57. Zuniga, M., & Simard, D. (2019). Factors Influencing L2 Self-repair Behavior: The Role of L2 Proficiency, Attentional Control and L1 Self-repair Behavior. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 48, 43-59.

Размещено на Allbest.ru