EVASIVE ANSWERS WITH OTHER FORMS OF RESPONSE
The relevance of the article is is in line with the central problems of modern communicative linguistics, is caused, on the one hand, by the lack of sophistication and ambiguity in understanding the communicative unit, its volume and its constituent parts, and, on the other hand, by the lack of a comprehensive study and description of all initiating and reacting communicative moves in dialogue as a form of speech.
The purpose of the article is in line with the central problems of modern communicative linguistics, is caused, on the one hand, by the lack of sophistication and ambiguity in understanding the communicative unit, its volume and its constituent parts, and, on the other hand, by the lack of a comprehensive study and description of all initiating and reacting communicative moves in dialogue as a form of speech.
The object of study is the question-answer dialogic unity, the components of which are communicative moves. The subject of the research is the semantic and pragmatic features of an evasive speech act in the oral and written dialogic speech of modern English (in the so-called official and unofficial dialogue) as a manifestation of the intention to reject speech action by the addressee of the survey.
Since the stimuli in the dialogue in the form of initiating communicative moves have been studied quite fully, including in terms of their modality, we restrict ourselves to considering reactions in the dialogue in the form of response remarks, namely, evasive answers for the question. Evasive answers as an object of study attracted the attention of scientists. But, not being the main goal of research, the study of evasion as a phenomenon was carried out by the authors fragmentarily, along with the solution of other problems, and therefore today there is no holistic understanding of the features of evasive statements.
The factual material that was analyzed also revealed various combinations of evasive statements with other types of reactions. There is such a mixed communicative move as evasion in the form of a “retrieval” of a direct answer due to the difficulty of answering it, after which the responder still tries to answer the question.
Evasive statements in the English language as a non-self-contained, unified speech act have their own illocutionary powers and perlocutionary effect and may include informative, reactive, socially regulatory, emotive and deictic illocutionary acts in accordance with their communicative functions. Evasive statements are intentionally semantically irrelevant responses to a stimulus question, of which two types are open and hidden evasive speech acts. In the first case, the addressee signals the interlocutor about his unwillingness to cooperate. In the second case, he leaves the answer in a hidden way. The study confirmed the fact that, guided by a pragmatic approach, evasive speech act should be defined as a complex speech act represented by a minimal segment of discourse (communicative step / move), uttered in a specific dialogical context, characterized by a basic illocution (the purpose of evading a direct answer to asked question), having a specific structure, grammatically designed, characterized by certain lexical, grammatical, syntactic and prosodic by such means, taking into account the paralinguistic aspect, reflecting the speaker’s intentions and personal characteristics of the communicants reacting and listening, their social-role relationship and communication distance, directed by their influence on the addressee of the question. An analysis of the factual material allowed us to conclude that evasive speech act as an activity includes a formal and substantive aspect.
1. Меньшиков И. И. (2012). Типология респонсивных предложений в современном русском языке / Избранные труды по лингвистике. Днепропетровск : Новая идеология. 326 с.
2. Михайлов Л. М. (1984) Диалогическое единство как коммуникативная единица. Всесоюзная научная конференция «Коммуникативные единицы языка». Тезисы докладов (12-13 декабря). М.: МГПИШ им. М. Тореза». С. 79-80.
3. Падучева Е. В. (1982) Прагматические аспекты связности диалога / Изв. АН СССР. Москва. Т. 41. С. 305-313.
4. Sadock J. M. (1975) Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 168 p.
5. Sanders R. E. (1987) Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. New York: SUNY Press. 273 p.
6. Schiffrin D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. 470p.
7. Searle J. R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.187p.
8. Searle J. R. (1975) Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. P. 59-82.
9. Wunderlich D. (1976) Studien zur Sprechaktteorie. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp. 416 p.