У статті йдеться про комунікативну ситуацію відвертого спілкування в сучасному англомовному родинному дискурсі та її прагмалінгвістичні особливості.В статье речь идет о коммуникативной ситуации откровенного общения в современном англоязычном семейном дискурсе и ее прагмалингвистические особенности.Underpinned with the postulates of the pragma-discourse approach, this article considers a variety of means of strategies' and tactics' realization in the situation of frank communicationin the modern English family discourse

Brovkina, Oksana Volodymyrivna

Karpenko, I.

Melaj, A.

Бровкина, Оксана Владимировна

Бровкіна, Оксана Володимирівна

Electronic Sumy State University Institutional Repository

УДК 81’373,47:316,286 O.V. Brovkina, I. Karpenko, A. Melaj Sumy State University THE COMMUNICATIVE SITUATION OF FRANK COMMUNICATION IN THE ENGLISH FAMILY DISCOURSE КОМУНІКАТИВНА СИТУАЦІЯ ВІДВЕРТОГО СПІЛКУВАННЯ В АНГЛОМОВНОМУ РОДИННОМУ ДИСКУРСІ  КОММУНИКАТИВНАЯ СИТУАЦИЯ ОТКРОВЕННОГО ОБЩЕНИЯ В АНГЛОЯЗЫЧНОМ СЕМЕЙНОМ ДИСКУРСЕ  У статті йдеться про комунікативну ситуацію відвертого спілкування в сучасному англомовному родинному дискурсі та її прагмалінгвістичні особливості. Ключові слова: комунікативна ситуація, відверте спілкування, родинний дискурс, стратегія, тактика. В статье речь идет о коммуникативной ситуации откровенного общения в современном англоязычном семейном дискурсе и ее прагмалингвистические особенности. Ключевые слова: коммуникативная ситуация, откровенное общение, семейный дискурс, стратегия, тактика. Underpinned with the postulates of the pragma-discourse approach, this article considers a variety of means of strategies' and tactics' realization in the situation of frank communicationin the modern English family discourse.The English family discourse is characterized by a great number of structural-semantical and communicative-pragmatic peculiarities of the impact's realization in the mentioned situation. The situation of frank communicationin the English family discourse is treated as a model of interaction of the family members with the dominant strategy of frankness, which is realized by discourse tactics, focused on the sincere communication without any secrets. The dominant strategy is realized by speech components, the choice of which depends on the tactics used in asymmetric (positions HEAD → DEPENDENT, DEPENDENT → HEAD) type of interaction and addresser-addressee configuration of the speakers' roles «PARENTS–CHILDREN». An addresser in the position of HEAD uses a tactic of prohibition mostly with the help of affirmative constructions of the general character and imperative constructions (constructions with negation and constructions of explicit imperative semantics). An addresser in the position of DEPENDENT uses tactics of request and gradual pressing generally with the help of interrogative constructions, affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical iteration, exclamatory constructions with lexical iteration. Key words: communicative situation, frank communication, family discourse, strategy, tactics. «The Communication permeating into people's life, has an extremely large number of manifestations, one of which is the family communication» [6, p. 67]. Family – is a very important element of the society, the original form of co-existence of people. The problems of forms and organizations of interpersonal interaction in the family are analysed in the fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology, linguistics. Linguists focus their attention on the individual characteristics of the typical family communication [1; 4]; the specifics of the language of the family [7]; role, gender and age factors [2; 5]; children discourse and communication of parents and children [3; 4]. The integration of humanities and social sciences and the expanding of the interests' sphere of the linguistic studies reorients some modern linguistic studies towards the discourse analysis and confirms the urgent need to explore the means of verbalization in the communicative situations of the family discourse. The aim of the paper is to establish the tactics of the speech impact and means of their realization in the communicative situation of frank communication in the family discourse according to the addresser-addressee configuration of the speakers' roles «PARENTS–CHILDREN» and to the type of asymmetric interaction. The object of this research is the English family discourse in the situation of frank communication, and the subject of the article is structural-semantical and communicative-pragmatic peculiarities of the impact's realization in the situation of frank communication according to the type of asymmetric relations of parents and children.  The situation of frank communication in the English family discourse is treated as a model of interaction of the family members with the dominant strategy of frankness, which is realized by discourse tactics, focused on the sincere communication without any secrets according to their asymmetric relationships. The strategy of frankness is realized with the asymmetric interaction of parents and children with the descending role vector HEAD → DEPENDENT is realized by the addresser in the dominant position of HEAD with the help of the tactic of prohibition using: 1) affirmative constructions of the general character (47 %): Daughter: 'Why don't I go to school?' I asked her. I was curious about school because my mother always called it a Breeding Ground.  Mother: 'They'll lead you astray,' was the only answer I got (J. Winterson ). The tactic of prohibition in the given fragment is realized with the help of the Maxim of number (make your speech as informative as it's required; do not make your speech more informative than it's required). In the case, when the speaker does not want to work out details of the communication, he or she uses the laconic reply. An addresser-mother in the position of the HEAD has no wish to explain openly to the addressee why the latter doesn’t go to school, so she uses an affirmative construction of the general character «They'll lead you astray», which realizes the tactic of prohibition; 2) imperative constructions (53 %): A) constructions with negation: Parents, accustomed to the position of the HEAD, can't change the usual role and communicate on equal terms as partners. Mother: 'There's a boy at church I think you're keen on.'  Daughter: 'What?' I said, completely mystified… Mother: 'It's time,' she went on, very solemn, 'that I told you about Pierre and how I nearly came to a bad end. Lord forgives me, but I did it. So just you take care, what you think is the heart might well be another organ…  Don't let anyone touch you Down There,' and she pointed to somewhere at the level of her apron pocket.  Daughter: 'No Mother,' I said meekly, and fled (J. Winterson). At first the act of communication is developed as a revelation of the addresser to the addressee-daughter: the mother tries to have the position of a partner, that is expressed by the construction «it is (high) time», but in the end the speaker starts to give the instructions expressed by the imperative construction with the negation «Don't let anyone touch you Down There», «So just you take care». «The direct control of the actions is achieved by the discourse that has imperative pragmatic functions, for example, the usage of orders, threats, restrictions ...» [9, p. 57]. The speaker reverts to the usual position of the HEAD with the prohibition tactic in the communication with the daughter. The submission of the addressee, in return, is realized by the word «no», which means an agreement, and a proxemic non-verbal component «I <…> fled»; B) constructions of explicit imperative semantics: Daughter: 'Then lie down an' rest yourself,' Kate said. 'Even Houston Lamont says you're a sick man.'  Father: 'Aye, I may be sick,' Stalker said. 'But he's scared, scared t'bloody death - at last.'   Daughter: 'Lie down,' Kate said. 'You look terrible.'  Still chuckling, Alex Stalker lay back (J. Stirling). The greatest failing of the stereotypization is that «people are inclined to see what they want, and not to notice other things, which aren't up to realities» [1,                p. 58]. The same happens to the stereotypical family positions of parents and children. In the communication children have the position of the HEAD and mother\father – the position of the DEPENDENT. The dialogue of the speakers dissipates the stereotype of age domination: addresser-daughter has the position of the HEAD that uses the tactic of prohibition, expressed in the advice form by the imperative construction of explicit imperative semantics repeated twice «Lie down». Such a tactic is strengthened by the affirmative construction with the combination of verb and adverb – «You look terrible», realizing the strategy of frankness. The speaker, who recommends, situationally has a higher status position; the one who is recommended to is in the worth situation; an adviser expresses a positive attitude to the one, who needs advice [12, p. 286]. The one to whom a piece of advice is used should put up with the role of the subordinate, and is obligated to agree with the confirming part of advice and should react on advice. [10, p. 141-142]. The speaker-DEPENDENT reacts non-verbally on the advice-prohibition «Still chuckling, Alex Stalker lay back». Structural-semantic and pragmatic peculiarities of frankness strategy realization is manifested by the speaker in the subordinate position of the DEPENDENT by: 1) interrogative constructions (37%): Daughter: ‘Mam, do I have to go?’ Mother: ‘Of course you do!’ (L. Andrews). A stereotype is that parents must have the positions of the HEAD, and children – the position of the DEPENDENT. The discourse fragment certifies the above-mentioned point of view. Mother-speaker has the position of the HEAD in communication with her daughter-addresser; in return, daughter has the DEPENDENT position and uses a tactic of request, which is expressed by general question with the verb of necessity «Do I have to go?»; 2) affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical reiteration (46%): The emotions' expression in the communicative situation of frank communication should be exact and clear. The expression is poor or false if it leaves uncertainty in the expressed feeling. Intensity of the emotional expressing can be gained in two ways: by quantity and quality. Qualitative intensity is in the choice of the stronger word out of the synonyms; quantitative intensity is in the reiteration of the word, which has an emotional connotation [8, p. 22]. The discourse fragment, which gives information about the speaker`s disease, illustrates the usage of quantitative intensity of feelings' expression in the communicative situation of frank communication.  Daughter: 'I... I... asked him if I would be all right to have ... babies.' Mother: 'And?' Daughter: 'Oh, Mam! Mam! He said... he said I'd never be able to have babies now... Oh, Mam, I wish I was dead!' (L. Andrews). Daughter-addresser, who is DEPENDENT, uses the tactic of  gradual forcing by means of affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical reiteration «I» (twice), «Mam» (twice), «he said» (twice); 3) affirmative and negative exclamatory constructions with lexical reiteration (17%): Daughter: 'Oh, Mam! I've never been so ... so ... furious in my life!' Daisy exploded once they were out of the cemetery.  Mother: 'You've every right to be annoyed about that.' Daughter: 'Annoyed! Annoyed! Mam, I'm furious! He ... he was taking her out on the town while I... Oh, I'm glad he's dead! He got what he deserved!' Mother: 'Daisy, that's a wicked thing to say!' Mary rebuked her strongly. Daughter: 'I don't care, Mam! (L. Andrews). Considering the reiteration as means of manipulation, it should be noticed, that only a definite type of reiteration can have an effect of a nonliteral illocutionary act [11]. The tactic of gradual forcing in the communication with the HEAD-addresser is realized by reiteration of definite words in exclamatory sentences «so ... so», «Annoyed! Annoyed!», «He ... he». Speech impact is used in the communicative situation of frank communication with the aim to reach an agreement with the speaker. Picture 1. "Means of realization of the strategy of frank communication with asymmetric relations of parents and children"  Thus, the frankness strategy in the English family discourse with the addresser-addressee configuration "PARENTS–CHILDREN" in the situations of asymmetric relations is realized by the HEAD with the help of the prohibition tactic; by the DEPENDENT – with the help of the tactics of request and gradual forcing. Structural-semantic types of realization with the configuration HEAD → DEPENDENT are affirmative constructions of the general character, imperative constructions (constructions with negation and constructions of explicit imperative semantics); with the configuration DEPENDENT → HEAD – interrogative constructions, affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical reiterations, exclamatory constructions with lexical reiterations. The explore prospects are studying of other communicative situations in the English family discourse.   Literature 1. Бігарі А.А. Дискурс сучасної англомовної сім'ї : дис. ... кандидата філол. наук : 10.02.04 / Адріана Андріївна Бігарі. – К., 2006. – 225 с. 2. Галапчук О.М. Вікова диференціація стратегій і тактик дискурсу                 в сучасній англійській мові : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 „ Германські мови” / Олена Михайлівна Галапчук. – Луцьк, 2000. – 18 с.  3. Гусєва Г.Г. Комічний дискурс мовної особистості дитини в сучасному лінгвокультурному просторі Великої Британії і США: автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 „ Германські мови” /  Г.Г. Гусєва. – Харків, 2013. – 20 с.  4. Козлова В.В. Реалізація виховного впливу в англомовному парентальному дискурсі: структурно-семантичний та прагматичний аспекти : 0204060AffirmativeconstructionsImperativeconstructionsInterrogativeconstructionsExclamatoryconstructionsHEADDEPENDENTавтореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 "Германські мови" / В.В. Козлова. – Харків, 2012. – 20 с. 5. Семенюк А.А. Гендерні та вікові особливості кооперативної мовленнєвої поведінки в сімейному дискурсі (на матеріалі сучасної англійської мови) : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд.  філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 „Германські мови” / А.А. Семенюк. – Донецьк, 2007. – 22с. 6. Шкіцька І. Маніпулятивні тактики позитиву: лінґвістичний аспект : монографія / І. Шкіцька. – К. : Видавничий дім Дмитра Бураго, 2012. – 440 с.  7. Байкулова А.Н. Речевое общение в семье : дис. ... кандидата филол. наук : 10.02.01 / А.Н. Байкулова. – Саратов, 2006. – 290 с. 8. Гак В.Г. Синтаксис эмоции и оценок / В.Г. Гак // Функциональная семантика: оценка, экспрессивность, модальность. – М., 1996. – С. 20-31. 9. Дейк ван Т.А. Дискурс и власть: Репрезентация доминирования в языке и коммуникации / Т.А. ван Дейк [пер. с англ.]. – М. : Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2013. – 344 с.  10. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс /                  В.И. Карасик. – Волгоград : Перемена, 2010. – 492 с. 11. Grice H.P. Logic and Conversation / H.P. Grice // Syntax and Semantics. – N.Y. : Academic Press, 1975. – Vol. 3 : Speech Acts. – P. 41-52. 12. Hudson T. The Discourse of Advice Giving in English: 'I Wouldn't Feed Until Spring No Matter What You Do' / Т. Hudson  // Language and Communication 10. – 1990. – No. 4. – P. 285-297. Illustration 1. Andrews Lyn A Wing and a Prayer / L. Andrews. – London : Headline Book Publishing, 2006. – 442p. 2. Stirling J. The Spoiled Earth / J. Stirling. – London : Pan Books, 1977. –              480 p. 3. Winterson J. Oranges are not the Only Fruit / J. Winterson. – London : Pandora, 1990. – 182 p.  Brovkina, O.V. The Communicative Situation of Frank Communication in the English family Discourse / О.V. Brovkina, I. Karpenko, A. Melaj // Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія «Філологічна». – Острог : Видавництво Національного університету «Острозька академія», 2015. – Вип. 56. – С. 3-5.  

Коммуникативная ситуация откровенного общения в англоязычном семейном дискурсе

SocioEconomic Challenges Journal (Sumy State University)

УДК 81’373,47:316,286 
O.V. Brovkina, I. Karpenko, A. Melaj 
Sumy State University 
THE COMMUNICATIVE SITUATION OF FRANK 
COMMUNICATION IN THE ENGLISH FAMILY DISCOURSE 
КОМУНІКАТИВНА СИТУАЦІЯ ВІДВЕРТОГО СПІЛКУВАННЯ 
В АНГЛОМОВНОМУ РОДИННОМУ ДИСКУРСІ  
КОММУНИКАТИВНАЯ СИТУАЦИЯ ОТКРОВЕННОГО 
ОБЩЕНИЯ В АНГЛОЯЗЫЧНОМ СЕМЕЙНОМ ДИСКУРСЕ 
 
У статті йдеться про комунікативну ситуацію відвертого спілкування в 
сучасному англомовному родинному дискурсі та її прагмалінгвістичні 
особливості. 
Ключові слова: комунікативна ситуація, відверте спілкування, 
родинний дискурс, стратегія, тактика. 
В статье речь идет о коммуникативной ситуации откровенного 
общения в современном англоязычном семейном дискурсе и ее 
прагмалингвистические особенности. 
Ключевые слова: коммуникативная ситуация, откровенное общение, 
семейный дискурс, стратегия, тактика. 
Underpinned with the postulates of the pragma-discourse approach, this 
article considers a variety of means of strategies' and tactics' realization in the 
situation of frank communicationin the modern English family discourse.The 
English family discourse is characterized by a great number of structural-
semantical and communicative-pragmatic peculiarities of the impact's realization 
in the mentioned situation. The situation of frank communicationin the English 
family discourse is treated as a model of interaction of the family members with 
the dominant strategy of frankness, which is realized by discourse tactics, focused 
on the sincere communication without any secrets. The dominant strategy is 
realized by speech components, the choice of which depends on the tactics used in 
asymmetric (positions HEAD → DEPENDENT, DEPENDENT → HEAD) type of 
interaction and addresser-addressee configuration of the speakers' roles 
«PARENTS–CHILDREN». An addresser in the position of HEAD uses a tactic of 
prohibition mostly with the help of affirmative constructions of the general 
character and imperative constructions (constructions with negation and 
constructions of explicit imperative semantics). An addresser in the position of 
DEPENDENT uses tactics of request and gradual pressing generally with the help 
of interrogative constructions, affirmative constructions with lexical and 
grammatical iteration, exclamatory constructions with lexical iteration. 
Key words: communicative situation, frank communication, family 
discourse, strategy, tactics. 
«The Communication permeating into people's life, has an extremely large 
number of manifestations, one of which is the family communication» [6, p. 67]. 
Family – is a very important element of the society, the original form of co-
existence of people. The problems of forms and organizations of interpersonal 
interaction in the family are analysed in the fields of philosophy, sociology, 
psychology, linguistics. Linguists focus their attention on the individual 
characteristics of the typical family communication [1; 4]; the specifics of the 
language of the family [7]; role, gender and age factors [2; 5]; children discourse 
and communication of parents and children [3; 4]. The integration of humanities 
and social sciences and the expanding of the interests' sphere of the linguistic 
studies reorients some modern linguistic studies towards the discourse analysis and 
confirms the urgent need to explore the means of verbalization in the 
communicative situations of the family discourse. 
The aim of the paper is to establish the tactics of the speech impact and 
means of their realization in the communicative situation of frank communication 
in the family discourse according to the addresser-addressee configuration of the 
speakers' roles «PARENTS–CHILDREN» and to the type of asymmetric 
interaction. The object of this research is the English family discourse in the 
situation of frank communication, and the subject of the article is structural-
semantical and communicative-pragmatic peculiarities of the impact's realization 
in the situation of frank communication according to the type of asymmetric 
relations of parents and children.  
The situation of frank communication in the English family discourse is 
treated as a model of interaction of the family members with the dominant strategy 
of frankness, which is realized by discourse tactics, focused on the sincere 
communication without any secrets according to their asymmetric relationships. 
The strategy of frankness is realized with the asymmetric interaction of 
parents and children with the descending role vector HEAD → DEPENDENT is 
realized by the addresser in the dominant position of HEAD with the help of the 
tactic of prohibition using: 
1) affirmative constructions of the general character (47 %): 
Daughter: 'Why don't I go to school?' I asked her. I was curious about 
school because my mother always called it a Breeding Ground.  
Mother: 'They'll lead you astray,' was the only answer I got (J. Winterson ). 
The tactic of prohibition in the given fragment is realized with the help of 
the Maxim of number (make your speech as informative as it's required; do not 
make your speech more informative than it's required). In the case, when the 
speaker does not want to work out details of the communication, he or she uses the 
laconic reply. An addresser-mother in the position of the HEAD has no wish to 
explain openly to the addressee why the latter doesn’t go to school, so she uses an 
affirmative construction of the general character «They'll lead you astray», which 
realizes the tactic of prohibition; 
2) imperative constructions (53 %): 
A) constructions with negation: 
Parents, accustomed to the position of the HEAD, can't change the usual role 
and communicate on equal terms as partners. 
Mother: 'There's a boy at church I think you're keen on.'  
Daughter: 'What?' I said, completely mystified… 
Mother: 'It's time,' she went on, very solemn, 'that I told you about Pierre 
and how I nearly came to a bad end. Lord forgives me, but I did it. So just you take 
care, what you think is the heart might well be another organ…  Don't let anyone 
touch you Down There,' and she pointed to somewhere at the level of her apron 
pocket.  
Daughter: 'No Mother,' I said meekly, and fled (J. Winterson). 
At first the act of communication is developed as a revelation of the 
addresser to the addressee-daughter: the mother tries to have the position of a 
partner, that is expressed by the construction «it is (high) time», but in the end the 
speaker starts to give the instructions expressed by the imperative construction 
with the negation «Don't let anyone touch you Down There», «So just you take 
care». «The direct control of the actions is achieved by the discourse that has 
imperative pragmatic functions, for example, the usage of orders, threats, 
restrictions ...» [9, p. 57]. The speaker reverts to the usual position of the HEAD 
with the prohibition tactic in the communication with the daughter. The submission 
of the addressee, in return, is realized by the word «no», which means an 
agreement, and a proxemic non-verbal component «I <…> fled»; 
B) constructions of explicit imperative semantics: 
Daughter: 'Then lie down an' rest yourself,' Kate said. 'Even Houston 
Lamont says you're a sick man.'  
Father: 'Aye, I may be sick,' Stalker said. 'But he's scared, scared t'bloody 
death - at last.'  
 Daughter: 'Lie down,' Kate said. 'You look terrible.' 
 Still chuckling, Alex Stalker lay back (J. Stirling). 
The greatest failing of the stereotypization is that «people are inclined to see 
what they want, and not to notice other things, which aren't up to realities» [1,                
p. 58]. The same happens to the stereotypical family positions of parents and 
children. In the communication children have the position of the HEAD and 
mother\father – the position of the DEPENDENT. The dialogue of the speakers 
dissipates the stereotype of age domination: addresser-daughter has the position of 
the HEAD that uses the tactic of prohibition, expressed in the advice form by the 
imperative construction of explicit imperative semantics repeated twice «Lie 
down». Such a tactic is strengthened by the affirmative construction with the 
combination of verb and adverb – «You look terrible», realizing the strategy of 
frankness. The speaker, who recommends, situationally has a higher status 
position; the one who is recommended to is in the worth situation; an adviser 
expresses a positive attitude to the one, who needs advice [12, p. 286]. The one to 
whom a piece of advice is used should put up with the role of the subordinate, and 
is obligated to agree with the confirming part of advice and should react on advice. 
[10, p. 141-142]. The speaker-DEPENDENT reacts non-verbally on the advice-
prohibition «Still chuckling, Alex Stalker lay back». 
Structural-semantic and pragmatic peculiarities of frankness strategy 
realization is manifested by the speaker in the subordinate position of the 
DEPENDENT by: 
1) interrogative constructions (37%): 
Daughter: ‘Mam, do I have to go?’ 
Mother: ‘Of course you do!’ (L. Andrews). 
A stereotype is that parents must have the positions of the HEAD, and 
children – the position of the DEPENDENT. The discourse fragment certifies the 
above-mentioned point of view. Mother-speaker has the position of the HEAD in 
communication with her daughter-addresser; in return, daughter has the 
DEPENDENT position and uses a tactic of request, which is expressed by general 
question with the verb of necessity «Do I have to go?»; 
2) affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical reiteration (46%): 
The emotions' expression in the communicative situation of frank 
communication should be exact and clear. The expression is poor or false if it 
leaves uncertainty in the expressed feeling. Intensity of the emotional expressing 
can be gained in two ways: by quantity and quality. Qualitative intensity is in the 
choice of the stronger word out of the synonyms; quantitative intensity is in the 
reiteration of the word, which has an emotional connotation [8, p. 22]. 
The discourse fragment, which gives information about the speaker`s 
disease, illustrates the usage of quantitative intensity of feelings' expression in the 
communicative situation of frank communication.  
Daughter: 'I... I... asked him if I would be all right to have ... babies.' 
Mother: 'And?' 
Daughter: 'Oh, Mam! Mam! He said... he said I'd never be able to have 
babies now... Oh, Mam, I wish I was dead!' (L. Andrews). 
Daughter-addresser, who is DEPENDENT, uses the tactic of  gradual 
forcing by means of affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical 
reiteration «I» (twice), «Mam» (twice), «he said» (twice); 
3) affirmative and negative exclamatory constructions with lexical 
reiteration (17%): 
Daughter: 'Oh, Mam! I've never been so ... so ... furious in my life!' Daisy 
exploded once they were out of the cemetery.  
Mother: 'You've every right to be annoyed about that.' 
Daughter: 'Annoyed! Annoyed! Mam, I'm furious! He ... he was taking her 
out on the town while I... Oh, I'm glad he's dead! He got what he deserved!' 
Mother: 'Daisy, that's a wicked thing to say!' Mary rebuked her strongly. 
Daughter: 'I don't care, Mam! (L. Andrews). 
Considering the reiteration as means of manipulation, it should be noticed, 
that only a definite type of reiteration can have an effect of a nonliteral 
illocutionary act [11]. The tactic of gradual forcing in the communication with the 
HEAD-addresser is realized by reiteration of definite words in exclamatory 
sentences «so ... so», «Annoyed! Annoyed!», «He ... he». Speech impact is used in 
the communicative situation of frank communication with the aim to reach an 
agreement with the speaker. 
Picture 1. "Means of realization of the strategy of frank communication with 
asymmetric relations of parents and children" 
 Thus, the frankness strategy in the English family discourse with the 
addresser-addressee configuration "PARENTS–CHILDREN" in the situations of 
asymmetric relations is realized by the HEAD with the help of the prohibition 
tactic; by the DEPENDENT – with the help of the tactics of request and gradual 
forcing. Structural-semantic types of realization with the configuration HEAD → 
DEPENDENT are affirmative constructions of the general character, imperative 
constructions (constructions with negation and constructions of explicit imperative 
semantics); with the configuration DEPENDENT → HEAD – interrogative 
constructions, affirmative constructions with lexical and grammatical reiterations, 
exclamatory constructions with lexical reiterations. 
The explore prospects are studying of other communicative situations in the 
English family discourse.   
Literature 
1. Бігарі А.А. Дискурс сучасної англомовної сім'ї : дис. ... кандидата 
філол. наук : 10.02.04 / Адріана Андріївна Бігарі. – К., 2006. – 225 с. 
2. Галапчук О.М. Вікова диференціація стратегій і тактик дискурсу                 
в сучасній англійській мові : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. 
філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 „ Германські мови” / Олена Михайлівна 
Галапчук. – Луцьк, 2000. – 18 с.  
3. Гусєва Г.Г. Комічний дискурс мовної особистості дитини в 
сучасному лінгвокультурному просторі Великої Британії і США: автореф. 
дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 „ Германські 
мови” /  Г.Г. Гусєва. – Харків, 2013. – 20 с.  
4. Козлова В.В. Реалізація виховного впливу в англомовному 
парентальному дискурсі: структурно-семантичний та прагматичний аспекти : 
0
20
40
60
Affirmative
constructions
Imperative
constructions
Interrogative
constructions
Exclamatory
constructions
HEAD
DEPENDENT
автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 
"Германські мови" / В.В. Козлова. – Харків, 2012. – 20 с. 
5. Семенюк А.А. Гендерні та вікові особливості кооперативної 
мовленнєвої поведінки в сімейному дискурсі (на матеріалі сучасної 
англійської мови) : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд.  філол. наук 
: спец. 10.02.04 „Германські мови” / А.А. Семенюк. – Донецьк, 2007. – 22с. 
6. Шкіцька І. Маніпулятивні тактики позитиву: лінґвістичний аспект : 
монографія / І. Шкіцька. – К. : Видавничий дім Дмитра Бураго, 2012. – 440 с.  
7. Байкулова А.Н. Речевое общение в семье : дис. ... кандидата филол. 
наук : 10.02.01 / А.Н. Байкулова. – Саратов, 2006. – 290 с. 
8. Гак В.Г. Синтаксис эмоции и оценок / В.Г. Гак // Функциональная 
семантика: оценка, экспрессивность, модальность. – М., 1996. – С. 20-31. 
9. Дейк ван Т.А. Дискурс и власть: Репрезентация доминирования в 
языке и коммуникации / Т.А. ван Дейк [пер. с англ.]. – М. : Книжный дом 
«ЛИБРОКОМ», 2013. – 344 с.  
10. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс /                  
В.И. Карасик. – Волгоград : Перемена, 2010. – 492 с. 
11. Grice H.P. Logic and Conversation / H.P. Grice // Syntax and Semantics. 
– N.Y. : Academic Press, 1975. – Vol. 3 : Speech Acts. – P. 41-52. 
12. Hudson T. The Discourse of Advice Giving in English: 'I Wouldn't Feed 
Until Spring No Matter What You Do' / Т. Hudson  // Language and 
Communication 10. – 1990. – No. 4. – P. 285-297. 
Illustration 
1. Andrews Lyn A Wing and a Prayer / L. Andrews. – London : Headline 
Book Publishing, 2006. – 442p. 
2. Stirling J. The Spoiled Earth / J. Stirling. – London : Pan Books, 1977. –              
480 p. 
3. Winterson J. Oranges are not the Only Fruit / J. Winterson. – London : 
Pandora, 1990. – 182 p. 
 
Brovkina, O.V. The Communicative Situation of Frank Communication in 
the English family Discourse / О.V. Brovkina, I. Karpenko, A. Melaj // Наукові 
записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія 
«Філологічна». – Острог : Видавництво Національного університету 
«Острозька академія», 2015. – Вип. 56. – С. 3-5. 
 


English

https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/44549/3/Brovkina_communicative.pdf

Коммуникативная ситуация откровенного общения в англоязычном семейном дискурсе

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Electronic Sumy State University Institutional Repository

SocioEconomic Challenges Journal (Sumy State University)