CC BY
45
УДК 81
Yuryeva Yu.B., postgraduate, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (Moscow, Russia), E-mail: yurevayb@gmail.com
ADDRESS FORMS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND BRITISH ENGLISH: SOCIOPRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE OVERVIEW.
Alongside with globalization and intensive migration, rapidly changing economic, political and cultural background the consideration of issues of intercultural communication is becoming increasingly important. In the comparative studies, very often English is one of compared languages. Besides, English is a global language and the term "English as an International Language" (EIL) corresponds to British English (BrE), American English (AmE), Canadian English (CanE), Australian English (AusE). This is the first attempt to examine address forms in the boundaries of one language but in two different countries with their historical, cultural and political background. The aim of the paper is to study address forms in AmE and BrE and to find out the similarities and differences of their usage. This research is based on G. Hofstede's cultural dimensions (1991), politeness theory [1, 2], Intercultural pragmatics [3, 4] and address forms theory [5, 6]. The data has been obtained through observation, questionnaires and interviews. This article represents the results of the research and analyzes the use of address forms in AmE and BrE in the situation when people need to address a stranger.
Key words: address forms, American English, British English, culture, intercultural communication.
Ю.Б. Юрьева, аспирант филологического факультета, Российский университет дружбы народов, г. Москва,
Е-mail: yurevayb@gmail.com
ФОРМЫ ОБРАЩЕНИЯ В АМЕРИКАНСКОМ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОМ ВАРИАНТЕ АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА, БРИТАНСКОМ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОМ ВАРИАНТЕ АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА: СОЦИОПРАГМАТИЧЕСКИЕ ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ РАЗВИТИЯ
В связи с процессами глобализации и интенсивной миграции, быстро изменяющимися сферами экономической, политической и культурной жизни, рассмотрение вопросов межкультурной коммуникации приобретает всё большее значение. В сравнительных исследованиях очень часто английский язык является одним из сравниваемых языков. Английский язык является международным языком, а термин «английский как международный язык» (EIL) соответствует британскому национальному варианту английского языка (BrE), американскому национальному варианту английского языка (AmE), канадскому национальному варианту английского языка (CanE), австралийскому национальному варианту английского языка (AusE). Это первая попытка изучить формы обращения в рамках одного языка, но в двух разных странах с их историческими, культурными и политическими особенностями. Целью данного исследования является изучение форм обращения в американском и британском национальных вариантах английского языка и определение сходств и различий в их использовании. Это исследование основано на культурных измерениях Г. Хофстеда (1991), теории вежливости [1; 2], межкультурной прагматики [3; 4] и теории форм обращения [5; 6]. Данные исследования были получены путем наблюдения, анкетирования и интервью. В этой статье представлены результаты исследований использования форм обращения в ситуации, когда люди обращаются к незнакомому человеку.
Ключевые слова: формы обращения, американский национальный вариант английского языка, британский национальный вариант английского языка, культура, межкультурная коммуникация.
1. Introduction
Taking into account the processes of globalization and intensive migration the consideration of issues of intercultural communication is becoming increasingly important. Our modern, globalized world is developing along the path of expanding the cooperation in economic, political, social and cultural life. The result of this interaction is the rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct contacts between state institutions, social groups and individuals of different countries and cultures. "Communication is embedded in culture, which serves as its context and is based on the prior experience of a community. In intercultural relations culture is the most important extralinguistic factor shaping its members' communicative style and behavior" [7].
This paper investigates the sociocultural features that govern contemporary use of address forms mainly addressing a stranger focusing on similarities and differences. As the aim was to study address forms in AmE and BrE and to find out the similarities and differences of their usage, we used quantitative method, focused on gathering numerical data among Americans and Englishmen through questionnaires, descriptive research in order to describe address forms in AmE and BrE.
Definitely, "culture is a system of symbol, and language is only one element of the symbolic system in this system in this network. And it is obviously that one should think of language in culture and not just of language and culture" [8]. What address forms are characteristic to the members of one culture can be totally unacceptable to the representatives of another culture. Besides, address forms reflect a vivid relationship between language and culture and show distinctive features of culture [9].
Nowadays, English is a global language [10] and the number of English speakers is growing. It's estimated to be spoken at least to some extent by a quarter of the world's population [11]. The term "English as an International Language" (EIL) corresponds to British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) to a smaller extent this term refers to Canadian English (CanE) and Australian English (AusE). BrE, AmE, CanE and AusE combine common features in all
language levels (lexical, grammatical and phonetic) and cultural specific features. In such a context, BrE, AmE, CanE and AusE are a combination of linguistic, cultural and worldview elements that reflect the linguistic world-image of its language speaker. The cultural differences between English speakers from a wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds can lead to intercultural misunderstanding and miscommunication while speaking a common language like English.
2. Address forms in sociocultural context
Address terms are an important aspect of sociolinguistic studies. "General address form is one language form which is used by people to address each other in some speech communication forms" [12]. In a speech act, address forms refer to verbal communication by the addresser and the addressee, through different channels (e.g. verbal). The choice of address forms and expressions reflects the social relationships among people, represents the cultural connotation of a language. Polite address forms very from culture to culture and even within different regions of a country. According to our recent study we have examined the use of address forms to a stranger in the boundaries of one language but in two different countries with their historical, cultural and political background.
The choice of address terms in cross-cultural communication reflects cultural peculiarities and differences. According to the Cultural dimensions by Geert Hofstede both Great Britain and America are on the top of the most individualistic cultures. In these countries people are motivated by their personal interests. Power distance is measured by distribution of power within a single institution or society. Both Great Britain and America are countries with a short PD (America - 40, England - 35). Such countries appreciate the equal distribution of power, equal rights and relationships. Uncertainty avoidance is the level of anxiety, the degree of discomfort experienced by the representatives of a particular culture while embarrassing situations or how they try to avoid them. America and the United Kingdom belong to cultures with a low degree of uncertainty avoidance (the United States - 46, the United Kingdom - 35). In such cultures behavior aimed at resolving the conflict is encouraged. In such cultures, uncer-
tainty, variability, dynamism, high mobility, tasks and problems, high tolerance for ambiguity are valued. According to Hofshtede's classification, Great Britain is a masculine country (66) and takes the 8th place out of 50, while America (62) takes the 11th place. The values of these cultures are mutually complementary sexual roles, the stiffness of men and the softness of women, clear distribution of roles between a man and a woman.
Both British and American cultures are characterized by distance and equality in communication. The interlocutors use informal norms while addressing others, so they rarely have difficulties while interacting with people (ex. Strangers).
Addressing is an important component of communicative competence. In cross-cultural communication, the choice of address form reflects cultural differences. While addressing people, people evoke personal identities, create and define relationships such as close/ distant, personal/professional, peers/rank-differentiated, etc. [13]. As British people and Americans are individualistic and value equality, they try not to show differences in social status, don't show the asymmetry in age and gender.
3. Data and methodology
In order to study address forms in AmE and BrE and to find out the similarities and differences of their usage, we used quantitative method, focused on gathering numerical data among Americans and Englishman through questionnaires, descriptive research, interviews in order to describe address forms in AmE and BrE.
The aim of the study was to analyze address forms in AmE and BrE to reveal the impact of sociocultural context on the choice of address forms while addressing a stranger in everyday communication. The questionnaire was filled by 100 informants (50 Englishman and 50 Americans), aged from 14 to 62. The collected data need further and more detailed analyses in order to get more information concerning gender, age and social differences. Besides, the aim of this paper is to focus on the preliminary results obtained, which reveal the cultural similarities and differences and modern tendencies in the usage of address forms in BrE and AmE.
4. Data analysis
While addressing people, people evoke personal identities, create and define relationships such as close/distant, personal/professional, peers/rank-differentiated, etc. [13]. As British people are highly individualistic and value equality, they try not to show differences in social status by using special address terms. They don't show the asymmetry in age, gender, even when they are present. Nowadays this tendency is increasingly noticeable. In the English language if one is not sure how to address the interlocutor, it is acceptable not to use any address forms at all. According to the strategy of Negative Politeness [1] the British use "attention-getters", which are generally informal: Excuse me or Hey. According to the study, the use of address terms (sir, miss, madam) has reduced greatly and it confirms anonymous style of communication, as the interlocutors don't seem necessary to name the addressee.
(1) Excuse me, I would like to know how to get to the bus station. (BrE)
(2) Excuse me, is there a bus station near here?(BrE)
A decade ago in America for an adult addressee who is a stranger, or whose name is known but who is not a member of a friendship or work group, formal title was used [14]. According to our research
Библиографический список
in AmE people generally used zero address forms (60%) and there were cases when people used titles (ma'am) while addressing a stranger (30%). Zero forms imply that no address form is available. In AmE the titles "miss" or "ma'am" are generally used when someone's trying to get someone's attention.
(3) Excuse me, ma'am how to get to the bus station. (AmE)
(4) Hey, ma'am is a bus stop near here? (AmE)
Both Americans and British people use attention-getters (Excuse me, Hey) while addressing strangers or use zero address forms.
(5) Excuse me, I would like to know how to get to the bus station. (BrE)
(6) Excuse me, is there a bus station near here?(BrE)
(7) Excuse me, do you know where the bus stop is.(AmE)
(8) Excuse me, where is the bus stop. (AmE)
According to our study only 20% of British speakers used utterances containing a nominal address form at least once. They were used by 16% of informants while addressing a young man (their age or younger than they), by 4% while addressing an old woman.
(9) Hey, mate, how can I get to the bus stop? (a 40-year-old woman).
(10) Excuse me dear do you know the way to the bus stop please? (a 30-year-old woman).
Besides, 30% of Americans used utterances containing a nominal address form at least once. They were used by informants while addressing young men and women (their age or younger than they). The nominal address forms (first names, titles) may be considered as the overarching principle that guides speakers in their choice of address forms [15]. "Social distance is a multidimensional concept involving degrees of affect, solidarity and familiarity" [15].
Among the common features in the usage of address forms in two different countries, our study has confirmed the extension of informality in British communication style. Denoting that the modern communication style ignores the status (using preferably zero address forms), it can be characterized as "anonymously-egalitarian" and informal [16]. What is more, American country demonstrates the tendency of democratization and deformalization of their communicative cultures.
5. Conclusions
Different cultures might have different address forms which reflect sociocultural context. So, cultural background has an influence on the usage of address forms while interacting with people. Nowadays, English is a global language and the current study we have made is an attempt to show the usage of address forms while interacting a stranger and to investigate differences in the usage of address forms in the boundaries of one language but in two different countries with their historical, cultural and political background.
In this paper we have studied address forms in AmE and BrE and found out the similarities and differences of their usage. Among the common features in the usage of address forms in two different countries, our study has confirmed the extension of informality in British communication style. What is more, American country demonstrates the tendency of democratization and deformalization of their communicative cultures. The cultural differences between English speakers from a wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds can lead to intercultural misunderstanding and miscommunication while speaking a common language like English.
1. Браун П. и С. Левинсон, вежливость: некоторые Универсалии в использовании языка. Кембридж: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
2. Лич Г. Прагматика вежливости. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
3. Кекес И. Межкультурная прагматика. ОУП, 2014.
4. Вежбицка A. Семантика, Культура и познание: Универсальные человеческие концепции в культурологических конфигурациях. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
5. Браун Ф. Условия обращения: проблемы закономерностей и использования в различных языках и культурах. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1988.
6. Кляйн М. Адрес в межкультурной коммуникации между языками. Межкультурная прагматика. 2009; 6.3: 395 - 409.
7. Ларина Т. Слишком много стен и недостаточно мостов: важность изучения межкультурной коммуникации. Русский лингвистический журнал. ВестникРУДН. 2015 (4): 9 - 16.
8. Чанг З. Англо-китайское лингвокультурологическое лсследование. Qingdao: China Ocean University Press. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2004.
9. Тан, стандарты вежливости и прагматические неудачи адресных форм в межкультурной коммуникации. Преподавание иностранных языков. 2004; (10): 11 - 14.
10. ^шру В., мировых вариантов английского языка: агония и экстаз. Журнал эстетического воспитания. 2012; Vol. 30, № 2: 135 - 155. Специальный выпуск: Выдающиеся гуманитарные науки.
11. Херн Б.Я., Кросс-культурная коммуникация: Теория и практика, 2013.
12. Чжан X.A., Сравнительное исследование китайско-американских адресных форм с точки зрения межкультурной коммуникации. Международный журнал английского языкознания. 2011; (1): 54 - 60.
13. Фитч К. Говоря в отношениях: Культура, коммуникация и межличностная связь. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998.
14. Эрвин-Трипп С. Социолингвистика. Калифорнийский университет, Беркли, 1967; 3.
15. Кляйн М., Хоррби C. и Уоррен Дж.. Язык и человеческие отношения: Стиль обращения в современном языке. Cambridge: CUP, 2009.
16. Ларина Т., Сурьянараян Н. «Госпожа или тетя Джи»: адресные формы в Британском и Индийском английском языках как отражение культуры и познания. Вариации в языке и использовании языка: Серия «Лингвистические, социокультурные и когнитивные перспективы». Петер Ланг. 2013: 190 - 217.
References
1. Braun P. i S. Levinson, vezhlivost': nekotorye Universalii vispol'zovaniiyazyka. Kembridzh: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
2. Lich G. Pragmatika vezhlivosti. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
3. Kekes I. Mezhkul'turnaya pragmatika. OUP, 2014.
4. Vezhbicka A. Semantika, Kul'tura ipoznanie: Universal'nye chelovecheskie koncepcii v kul'turologicheskih konfiguraciyah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
5. Braun F. Usloviya obrascheniya: problemy zakonomernostej i ispol'zovaniya v razlichnyh yazykah i kul'turah. Berlin: Mouton de Gruy-ter, 1988.
6. Klyajn M. Adres v mezhkul'turnoj kommunikacii mezhdu yazykami. Mezhkul'turnaya pragmatika. 2009; 6.3: 395 - 409.
7. Larina T. Slishkom mnogo sten i nedostatochno mostov: vazhnost' izucheniya mezhkul'turnoj kommunikacii. Russkij lingvisticheskij zhurnal. Vestnik RUDN. 2015 (4): 9 - 16.
8. Chang Z. Anglo-kitajskoe lingvokul'turologicheskoe lssledovanie. Qingdao: China Ocean University Press. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2004.
9. Tan, standarty vezhlivosti i pragmaticheskie neudachi adresnyh form v mezhkul'turnoj kommunikacii. Prepodavanie inostrannyh yazykov. 2004; (10): 11 - 14.
10. Kashru V., mirovyh variantov anglijskogo yazyka: agoniya i 'ekstaz. Zhurnal 'esteticheskogo vospitaniya. 2012; Vol. 30, № 2: 135 - 155. Special'nyj vypusk: Vydayuschiesya gumanitarnye nauki.
11. Hern B.Ya., Kross-kul'turnaya kommunikaciya: Teoriya i praktika, 2013.
12. Chzhan X.A., Sravnitel'noe issledovanie kitajsko-amerikanskih adresnyh form s tochki zreniya mezhkul'turnoj kommunikacii. Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnal anglijskogo yazykoznaniya. 2011; (1): 54 - 60.
13. Fitch K. Govorya v otnosheniyah: Kul'tura, kommunikaciya i mezhlichnostnaya svyaz'. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998.
14. 'Ervin-Tripp S. Sociolingvistika. Kalifornijskij universitet, Berkli, 1967; 3.
15. Klyajn M., Horrbi C. i Uorren Dzh.. Yazyk i chelovecheskie otnosheniya: Stil' obrascheniya v sovremennom yazyke. Cambridge: CUP, 2009.
16. Larina T., Sur'yanarayan N. «Gospozha ili tetya Dzhi»: adresnye formy v Britanskom i Indijskom anglijskom yazykah kak otrazhenie kul'tury i poznaniya. Variacii v yazyke i ispol'zovanii yazyka: Seriya "Lingvisticheskie, sociokul'turnye i kognitivnye perspektivy". Peter Lang. 2013: 190 - 217.
Статья поступила в редакцию 28.05.18
УДК 81- 41
Yusufova Sh.A., postgraduate, Dagestan State Pedagogical University (Makhachkala, Russia), E-mail: shagum1984@yandex.ru
STYLISTIC SYNONYMS IN THE TABASARAN LANGUAGE IN COMPARISON WITH RUSSIAN. The article discusses the types of synonyms and their equivalents in the Tabasaran language in comparison with Russian. Existing classifications of synonyms are built on a variety of grounds. The author distributes the synonyms into two types: 1) inner language words; 2) exterior language words. The classes of stylistic synonymy are studied according to the way of their building. In some cases, one of the components of stylistic synonym duplicates stylistically neutral way of building. Mixed type of stylistic synonym, consisting of reduplication and affixation, form by means of semantic addition. The analysis of the synonyms shows that in the Tabasaran language there are many synonyms that are formed by means of semantic addition.
Key words: synonyms, language, Russian, Tabasaran, denotative component.
Ш.А. Юсуфова, соискатель Дагестанского государственного педагогического университета, г. Махачкала,
E-mail: shagum1984@yandex.ru
СТИЛИСТИЧЕСКИЕ СИНОНИМЫ В ТАБАСАРАНСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ В СОПОСТАВЛЕНИИ С РУССКИМ
В статье рассматриваются типы синонимов в табасаранском языке в сопоставлении с русским. В интересах решения поставленной проблемы приоритетным считаем распределение класса синонимов на два типа: 1) внешнеязыковые и 2) внутриязыковые.
В рассмотренных классах стилистической синонимии значения слов совмещены способом образования. В ряде случаев один из компонентов стилистического синонима дублирует стилистически нейтральный способ образования синонимов. Смешанный тип стилистического синонима, состоящий из редупликации и аффиксации, образован посредством семантического сложения. Анализ синонимов в аспекте поставленной проблемы убедил автора в том, что в табасаранском языке широкое распространение получили синонимы, образованные посредством семантического сложения c типом внешнеязы-ковых фактов.
Ключевые слова: синонимы, язык, русский, табасаранский, денотативный компонент.
Традиционное определение синонимов - близкие или совпадающие по значению слова, но различных по звучанию -уязвимо в двух позициях: во-первых, оно не применимо к полисемантическим словам, которые не могут быть синонимичны во всех значениях; во-вторых, нельзя говорить о тождестве лексического значения в целом, так как лишь денотативный компонент значения может быть описан как тождественный или близкий [1, с. 193]. Кроме того, в рассмотренных определениях близости или тождества значений совмещены способы образования разговорных синонимов. Примерами тождественных значений разговорных синонимов служат следующие: са-вадвал «грамота» - урхуб - бик1уб (читать + писать); ризкь «пропитание» - уьлна шид (хлеб + вода); саб-швнуб «несколько» - саб-кьюб (один + два); гъварч «толпа», «собрание» - аь-
хюр - биц1ир (млад + стар); гъал «скандал» - гьарай - гьурай (сильный крик + зов); хизан, кюлфет «семья» - хпир - бай (жена + ребенок). В ряде случаев один из компонентов разговорного синонима дублирует стилистически нейтральный синоним [2]. Ср.:
гъабар «посуда» - гъабар - кьулар (посуда + доски); жигерар «внутренности» - удрар - фунар (кишки + животы); салам «привет» - салам - дуьа (привет + молитва); аьрза «жалоба, заявление» - аьрза - фарзе (заявление + предложение).
Достаточно продуктивным способом образования разговорных синонимов выступают способы образования сложных слов с редупликацией. Вслед за РЙ. Гайдаровым мы выделяем в их составе [3, с. 28]:
