Indirect speech acts in official style of english variants (interaction of pragmatic and non-pragmatic aspects)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Институт финансового контроля и аудита

INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS IN OFFICIAL STYLE OF ENGLISH VARIANTS (INTERACTION OF PRAGMATIC AND NON-PRAGMATIC ASPECTS)

Agapova S.G.

Gushchina L.V.

Neustroyev K.S.

Ростов-на-Дону

The modern science about language, including Germanic studies, tends to the multidimensional and profound interpretation of objects, which is characteristic of the latest knowledge (that has been pointed out in recent works by S.G. Agapova [1, 9-12], I.P. Khutyz [3] and others). The space which dynamically connects the conventional commonality and poorly studied variability is the official style itself and serves an adequate object for the mentioned above tendency. The freedom of interpretations, which is basic for linguistic knowledge, can be verified and specified only by those communicative phenomena which correspond to such dynamics, namely indirect speech acts in different variants of a certain language.

Hence, the aim of the present article consists of revealing prerequisites of use of indirect speech acts in different variants of the English language and thus seems to be doubtless.

It is known that a special feature of language systems of modern languages is the mobility and flexibility of all their levels caused by their tendency to adjust to communicative requirements of extremely dynamic reality. In societies of different countries changes occur (in particular, economic ones), then influence and determine the specifics of representatives' lifestyle from various cultures. No doubt they do influence the discourse practices, which are characteristics of the speakers of the given languages: “…indeed the change in discourse is an inherent element of the economic change” [5, 2].

Material and Methods

One of the main methods of how to solve communicative problems of the globalized reality is the recognition of the status of English as the world communicative means (lingua franca). Such attitude to the most important means of interaction of reality could not but affected those forms which English is taking at the moment. So, a number of modern linguists who study the ways of development of the English language, for example, David Crystall (2006), note that the presence fact is characteristic not just of English, but of a great deal of its quite independent variants (the so-called `Englishes') [4]. That is why at the international conference devoted to the analysis of the status of English as the global communicative means (Verona, 2008), D. Crystall spoke about the future of the English languages (the future of Englishes), but not just of the language, thus recognizing the legal independent status of all its existing options (for example, Indian or Singapore) [4].

The official style in this way is specifically representative. And its compliance to the mentioned above tendencies is provided, in particular, with those acts which integrally connect the standard and the dynamics, first of all, by indirect speech acts.

Certainly, such approach to the status of the international means of communication is relative. For instance, when speaking about the Indian variant of English (Hinglish), scholars underestimate its status to some extent, without equating it to the standard and even underestimating linguistic capabilities of the English-speaking population of India. However, it is obvious that in order to exchange information effectively, interactants of the XXI century do not need to speak perfect English with a royal pronunciation (RP): it is enough to speak English with the presence of a “cultural” component and to find a common language according to communicants' desire. That is why sometimes the modern variant of English can be characterized by a certain deculturalisation. As English has already been spoken not only by its native speakers, but also by a great number of other people, the process of losing some components of meanings and cultural associations which refer English only to the society of its speakers seems to be quite natural. Therefore, in order to remain the language of international communication, the English language system has to lose its originally unique cultural colouring [6, 60].

Discussion

Despite the necessity to review some requirements to master English by the modern language personality taking into account its practical skills of communication, it is impossible to neglect the importance of cultural sensibleness (a social context of language functioning and its speakers) for effective communication. The culture binds meanings whose interpretations depend upon people's experience. The culture immerses us in the important context in which we meet, understand each other and interpret the world around us: “It (culture) provides people with a meaningful context in which to meet, to think about themselves and face the outer word” [7, 24]. Therefore, no matter what universal means of communication English is, the availability of the background information about cultural identifying features of the addressee remains the major factor in achieving some positive communicative result. The addresser's sensibleness of unique features of the English speakers' language world pictures seems important as their specifics of partitioning the reality has influenced the formation of grammatical, syntactic, semantic and other levels of language. Uniqueness and importance of “cultural baggage” of modern English were shown by A. Wierzbicka in her work “English Meaning and Culture” (2006). In her opinion, the cultural and historical heritage of the English language still continues to remain despite the fact of being turned into the language which is capable to adjust to communicative requirements of representatives of various societies: “The fact that English “can rapidly evolve” doesn't mean that it has no cultural core, no internal legacy of cultural meanings” [8, 299].

To some extent, this observation explains, at first sight, the contradictory nature of the tendencies occurring in the modern world. On the one hand, the world community tends to globalization and unification of certain communicative practices (for example, in the professional sphere).

On the other hand, even the European Union states try to keep their originality and cultural uniqueness. Certainly, the intensification of cultures' tendency to preserve their traditions and specifics can turn out to be a certain response to the tendency of the uniform economic space, standardization of business practices, maintenance of a single corporate culture, deleting of political borders, etc.

Not only the language knowledge is important in making the process of communication successful which results in a desirable communicative way. So is the cultural and social “communicative stock”. Thus, Dutch scientist F. Trompenaz, dealing with the issues of cross-cultural communication in a business environment, defines the following cultural levels which influence the pragmatics of communicants' interaction: the external - obvious level; the average level which covers regulations and values of any society; the cultural core which comprises world outlook views that influence forms of the organization of reality, perception and solution of problems [7, 21-23]. It is obvious that these three levels correspond to the environment influence: the way native speakers treat the building of their relations with colleagues and friends; the tendency to universal or particular worldview. Universalists consider that when making a decision, it is necessary to adhere to standards which are accepted everywhere in the culture they live in (the accomplishment of certain universal rules). Particularists take decisions depending on a situation, circumstances, paying much attention to the personal relations. General rules do not play such role in the similar society. For instance, in the process of business communication, the universalist cannot trust a particularist, who, in his opinion, always puts his friends' and relatives' interests above others' ones. In his turn, the universalist can doubt the particularist's offers as when in need he will not be able to help even his friends [7, 31].

Communicants, depending upon their cultural belonging, can be individualists, or collectivists. This fact forms their behavioural choices, stereotypes, the attitude towards the category of time, reality, etc. Cultural varieties have been created for a long time and, as a rule, they are not realized by communicants (to a certain stage).

The corresponding communicative stock, being created under the influence of the national character and lifestyle, finds its reflection in the native speakers' discourse. It is obvious that nowadays any language is very sensitive to extralinguistic factors and reacts rather quickly, trying to take into account different requirements of reality. M. Krongauz determines the necessity of transformations in the language as follows: the language which exists in the changing world and does not change itself, ceases to perform its function [3]. We will not be able to use it when speaking about this world just because we will not have enough words. And it is not so important whether the speech is about some house horned owls, new technologies or new political and economic realities.

The conceptual specifics of representatives of any culture which influence the acceptance and interpretation of reality are also the most important component of the communicative stock. For instance, the idea of the American Dream in the context of French society can turn into “the French Nightmare”. The fact that Americans, having no penny to bless themselves with, can achieve some social and financial success (nouveau riche) seems wild for the Frenchman. In French culture the history is appreciated. The feeling of the past is important when choosing a business partner, but not the present and future, as it often occurs in American culture [7, 10]. indirect speech language communication

Conclusion

So, the differentiation of English variants reflects the variability of communication and performs as a prerequisite of dynamic characteristics of official and business languages, including the use of indirect speech acts. The interrelation between their pragmatic and non-pragmatic aspects appears as an intrinsic line. The specifics of the national mentality reflects in this, having been developed for a long time, and determines the interpretation of events and their linguistically fixed codification.

References

1. Agapova S.G. K voprosu o tekste i tekstovyh kategoriah [On the problem of text and textual categories] // Lingvistika: tradizii i sovremennost' [Linguistics: traditions and modernity]. Rostov-on-Don: PI SFU, 2009. P. 9-12. [in Russian]

2. Krongauz M.A. Russkij jazyk nag rani nervnogo sryva [The Russian language is close to the edge]. М.: RAS, 2008. [in Russian]

3. Khutyz I.P. Social'naja obuslovlennost' jazykovyh realizacij kak kategorija lingvisticheskoj pragmatiki [Social conditionality of language realization as a category of linguistic pragmatics]. Krasnodar: KSU, 2006. [in Russian]

4. Crystal D. English as a Global Language (2 ed). Cambridge: CUP, 2003.

5. Fairclough N. Language and Globalization. London; New York, 2006.

6. Santipolo M. English as the Paradox of Internationalization // International Conference on Global English. Book of Abstracts. Verona, 2008. P. 60-61.

7. Trompenaars F., Hampden-Turner C. Riding the Waves of Culture. New York: Publicum, 1998. P. 10-31.

8. Wierzbicka A. English meaning and culture. Oxford: OUP, 2006. P. 200-299.

Annotation

The present paper deals with indirect speech acts in the official style in different variants of the English language. It is based on the ideas of D. Crystal, A. Wierzbicka, F. Trompenaars and others. The aim of the present article consists of revealing prerequisites of use of indirect speech acts in different variants of the English language. The authors discuss the role of culture and explain its importance in the process of communication, introducing the idea of the cultural and social “communicative stock”. In conclusion, it summarizes that the differentiation of English variants reflects the variability of communication and performs as a prerequisite of dynamic characteristics of official and business languages, including the use of indirect speech acts.

Keywords: indirect speech acts, official style, pragmatics, pragmalinguistics, Englishes.

В настоящей статье рассматриваются косвенные речевые акты в официальном стиле различных вариантов современного английского языка, основываясь на идеях Д. Кристала, А. Вежбицкой, Ф. Тромпеназа и др. Целью работы является выявление предпосылок использования косвенных речевых актов в различных вариантах английского языка. Авторы обсуждают роль культуры и объясняют важность таковой в процессе коммуникации, включая в контекст обсуждения идею культурного и социального коммуникативного инвентаря. В заключении авторы приходят к выводу о том, что дифференциация вариантов английского языка отражает вариативность коммуникации и выступает как предпосылка динамических характеристик деловой речи, включая использование косвенных актов.

Ключевые слова: косвенные речевые акты, официально-деловой стиль, прагматика, прагмалингвистика, варианты английского языка.

Размещено на Allbest.ru