Means of expressing politeness in speech acts in Indo-European languages (based on Russian, English, German and Urdu)
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5075-2024-4-6-17
Abstract
Aim. To define the main ways of expressing politeness in such speech acts as address, request, apology, gratitude and rejection and comparing the language means which serve as politeness markers in Russian, English, German and Urdu.
Methodology. The core content of the research is the study of lexical and grammatical ways of expressing politeness in four Indo-European languages: Russian, English, German and Urdu. The frequency of use of the etiquette formulas in the analysed languages in the process of direct communication with native speakers (Urdu, Russian) and their occurrence in video sources or social networks (English, German) served as the criteria for choosing them for the present work. Descriptive and linguistic-stylistic methods were implemented in the research.
Results. The study has enabled the authors to conclude that each of the languages in question has a wide range of means to express politeness in different communicative situations. Polite expressions are distributed across the registers of communication. There is a general of simplification of structures, which is more obvious in English and German and less obvious in Russian and Urdu.
Research implications. The research reveals the pragmatic value of the studied language means and contributes to the theory of speech acts as it presents a detailed comparative overview of the four widely spread languages in the world. The presented facts can be used for teaching theoretical and practical linguistic subjects.
About the Authors
N. Bhatti
Federal State University of Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalya V. Bhatti – Cand. Sci. (Philology), Assoc. Prof., Department of Indo-European and Oriental Languages
ulitsa Radio 10A build. 2, Moscow 105005
E. Yu. Kharitonova
Federal State University of Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena Yu. Kharitonova – Cand. Sci. (Philology), Assoc. Prof., Departmental Head, Department of Indo-European and Oriental Languages
ulitsa Radio 10A build. 2, Moscow 105005
References
1. Austin, J. L. (1986). Word as action. In: New in foreign linguistics. Issue XVII: Theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress publ. pp. 22–129 (in Russ.).
2. Searle, J. R. (1986). What is a speech act? In: New in foreign linguistics. Issue XVII: Theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress publ. pp. 151–169 (in Russ.).
3. Krasina, E. A. (1999). Semantics and pragmatics of Russian performative utterances [dissertation]. Moscow (in Russ.).
4. Susov, I. P. (2009). Linguistic Pragmatics. Vinnitsa: Nova Knyga publ. (in Russ.).
5. Kozhina, M. N. (1999). Speech genre and speech act (some aspects of the problem). In: Speech Genres, 2, 52–61 (in Russ.).
6. Bhatti, N. V., Gorbacheva, O. A. & Kharitonova, E. Yu. (2022). Category of politeness in Indo-European languages: comparative aspect (based on English, German, Russian, and Urdu). In: Vestnik of Samara University. History, pedagogics, philology, 28 (3), 151–160. DOI: 10.18287/2542-0445-2022-28- 3-151-160 (in Russ.).
7. Bragina, N. G., Issers, O. S., Mendoza, I. & Rathmayr, R. (2021). The category of linguistic politeness and its complex description: on the problem statement. In: Communication Studies, 8 (2), 217-232. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(2).217-232 (in Russ.).
8. Yerznkyan, Ye. (2020). The category of politeness: an overview of current (im)politeness theories. In: Օտար լեզուները բարձրագույն դպրոցում (Foreign Languages in Higher Education), vol. 23, no. 1 (26) (2019), 162–172. DOI: 10.46991/FLHE/2019.23.1.162 (in Russ.).
9. Pavlova, A. V. & Goloschapova, M. V. (2020). Politeness strategies in discourse of artificial bilinguals. In: Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 5, 102–111. DOI: 10.18384/2310- 712X-2020-5-102-111 (in Russ.).
10. Barsukova, M. I. & Rodionova, T. V. (2022). The means of expressing the category of politeness in medical discourse (On the material of the doctor and patient speech communication). In: Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philology. Journalism, 22 (4), 377–384. DOI: 10.18500/1817-7115-2022-22-4-377-384.
11. Tsutsieva, M. G. (2023). Communicative-speech realization of the category of politeness in modern German political discourse. In: German Philology at the St. Petersburg State University, 13, 346–357. DOI: 10.21638/spbu33.2023.119 (in Russ.).
12. Dubrovchenko, E. M. (2023). Reactions to changes in communicative distance in English communication. In: Key Issues of Contemporary Linguistics, 4, 53–62. DOI: 10.18384/2949-5075-2023-4-53-62 (in Russ.).
13. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2001.
14. Formanovskaya, N. I. (2002). Communication Culture and Speech Etiquette. Moscow: IKAR publ. (in Russ.).
15. Risinzon, S. A. (2010). General and ethnocultural in Russian and English speech etiquette [dissertation]. Saratov (in Russ.).
16. Grice, H. P. (1985). Logic and conversation. In: New in foreign linguistics. Issue XVI. Moscow: Progress publ. pp. 217–237 (in Russ.).
17. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London, New York: Longman.
18. Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The Logic of Politness: Or, minding your p`s and q`s. In: Corum, C., Cedric Smith-Stark, T. & Weiser, A., eds. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 292–305.
19. Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-Work: an Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. In: Psychiatry Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 18 (3), 213–231. DOI: 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.
20. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. Goldin, V. E. (1983). Etiquette and speech. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye publ. (in Russ.).
22. Karasik, V. I. (2019). Norms of behaviour in linguistic worldview. In: Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 4, 35–49. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2019-4-35-49.
23. Karasik, V. I. (1991). Language of social status. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences publ., Volgograd Pedagogical Institute publ.
24. Bhatti, N. V., Kovsh, E. V. & Kharitonova, E. Yu. (2021). Communicative Features of the Use of Vocatives in Indo-European Languages (Based on Russian, English, German and Urdu). In: Sładkiewicz, Ž., ed. Perswazja językowa w różnych dyskursach (Speech Impact in Different Discourses). Vol. 6. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego publ. pp. 128–139.
25. Bhatti, N. V. (2017). Second-person pronouns in Russian, English and Urdu. In: Significant personalities in language and culture: on the anniversary of the birth of Yu. M. Lotman: a collection of articles based on the materials of the Interuniversity Scientific and Practical Seminar (Moscow, April 27, 2017). Moscow: Moscow State Regional University publ. pp. 25–31 (in Russ.).
Supplementary files
Review
Views:
159
Email this article 
