The problem of English communicative cliches classification

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The problem of English communicative clichйs classification

Tetiana Koknova, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of Romance and Germanic Philology Department Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University

Особливий науковий інтерес у процесі комунікації викликають регулярні комбінації словесних знаків, які є автономними лінгвістичними утвореннями із заданими традиційними значенням і формою, тобто мовні кліше. Авторка аналізує сутність поняття мовленнєвого кліше та побутування його в мові з погляду вітчизняних і зарубіжних науковців. Дослідниця вважає, що питання класифікації англомовних комунікативних кліше все ще залишається актуальним. Метою розвідки є аналіз та зіставлення наявних класифікації англомовних кліше. У процесі дослідження розглянуто та проаналізовано різні підходи до класифікації англомовних кліше за ситуативною ознакою.

Установлено, що до найпоширеніших належать ті класи, які виділяє більшість науковців (кліше-звернення, кліше для привернення уваги, кліше-прощання, кліше-знайомство, кліше-привітання, кліше-прохання, кліше-подяка, кліше-вибачення, кліше згоди або незгоди, кліше, що виражають позицію, кліше схвалення та несхвалення, кліше втіхи, кліше-співчуття, кліше поради). Окремо виділено розмовні формули для призначення зустрічі, формули виразу байдужості. Розглянуто також класифікацію розмовних кліше, наведену Мартином Хантом. Докладно проаналізовано класифікацію, запропоновану Р. Делевською, в основу якої покладено тематичну та функційну ознаки, завдяки чому класифікація набуває більш узагальнювального характеру. Мовні кліше поділяють на інформувальні, спонукальні, оцінно-модальні, контактні та метакомунікативні.

На підставі дослідження зроблено висновок про те, що розглянуті класифікації є обґрунтованими і їх практично застосовують, описуючи номенклатуру мовленнєвих кліше в англійській мові, проте відзначено деякі недоліки, пов'язані з тематичним аспектом кліше, що зумовлено складністю виділення тих чи тих мовних ситуацій. Аналіз наведених класифікацій свідчить, що між дослідниками англомовних кліше немає єдиної позиції щодо виділення класів на основі ситуативної ознаки, оскільки виділені одним лінгвістом класи мовних кліше перетинаються із класами кліше, виділеними іншими вченими.

Ключові слова: мовленнєві кліше, англомовні комунікативні кліше, класифікація кліше, розмовні формули, метакомунікативні кліше.

Regular combinations of verbal units, which are defined as autonomous linguistic formations with a given traditional meaning and form, i.e., language clichйs, attract particular scientific interest in the process of communication. The author considers the nature of the concept of language clichйs, and the laws of their existence in English in Ukrainian and foreign scholars' viewpoints. The researcher believes that the issue of classification of English communicative clichйs is still relevant. The study aims to analyze and compare existing classifications of English clichйs. In the course of the research different approaches to the classification of English clichйs on a situational basis are considered and analyzed. It is established that the most common are those classes that are distinguished by the majority of the researchers (clichйd appeals, clichй to attract attention, clichй-farewell, clichй-acquaintance, clichй-congratulation, clichй-request, clichй-gratitude, clichй-apology, clichй of agreement or disagreements, clichйs to express position, clichйs of approval and disapproval, clichйs of consolation, clichйs of compassion, clichйs of advice). Conversational formulas for the meeting appointment and formulas of expression of indifference are singled out. The classification of colloquial clichйs given by Martin Hunt is also considered. The classification given by R. Delevska is analyzed in detail. It is based on thematic and functional features, due to which the classification becomes more generalizing. Language clichйs are divided into informative, motivational, evaluative-modal, contact, and metacommunicative ones. As a result of the study it is concluded that the considered classifications are reasonable and practically used in describing the arrangement of language clichйs in English. It is also noted some shortcomings related to the thematic aspect of clichйs, which is due to the difficulty of distinguishing certain language situations. Analysis of these classifications shows that there is no consensus among researchers of English clichйs on the allocation of classes based on situational characteristics, as selected by one linguist classes of language clichйs are controversial to clichй classes identified by other researchers.

Key words: language clichйs, English communicative clichйs, classification of clichйs, conversational formulas, metacommunicative clichйs.

Introduction

Nowadays, there are scientific models of language origin in the aspect of people's mental and cognitive activity. Those models consider the basic principles of various specific approaches to language resources description. Particular scientific attention in communication is paid to regular combinations of verbal signs, which are autonomous linguistic units with a given traditional meaning and form. Such units include language clichйs. In recent years, there has been steady scientific interest in the issue of clichйs.

Literature review

Ukrainian and foreign linguists classify clichйd expressions together with set expressions as phraseological units (V. Vinohradov, O. Kunin, O. Reichstein, L. Skrypnyk, H. Udovichenko, V. Uzhchenko, et al.). It is well-established in the linguistic literature to consider the clichй as a standard language unit, primarily associated with standardization and phraseology of the language of official business style.

In modern foreign linguistics the issue of the nature of clichй and its existence in the language have become the subject of consideration in the works of V. Gvozdeva, T. Dridze, V. Krasnykh, O. Kubryakova, G. Kopnina, Yu. Prokhorov, О. Savvina, Yu. Sorokin, R. Ratmeier, O. Sheigal et al.

O. Kubryakova notes that clichйs characterize communicative acts, as they appeal not only to rituals but also include «citation» material. According to the researcher, language clichйs are the set linguistic units of nomination, always contained in the inner «Self» (or memory) (Кубрякова, 2008).

V. Krasnykh considers the precedent statement the source of clichйs and speech stamps. The linguist suggests the term `association-stamp'. It is an association by a word from a fixed speech formula. In addition, V. Krasnykh defines the concept of «stereotype» separating it from stamps (Красных, 1998).

A. Skovorodnikov, T. Matveeva, V. Krasnykh, E. Grinkevich, and other scientists distinguish between the concepts of speech stamp and clichй (speech standard). At the same time, the clichй is regarded as a positive phenomenon and a speech stamp as a negative one.

G. Belikova defines clichйs as «set one-word and meta-word language units of a figurative or non-idiomatic nature, with a fixed significative- denotative meaning and reproduced in certain speech contexts and situations» (Копнина, 2019, p. 319). The researcher classifies phraseological units as clichйs, since they have the same features: stability, integrity, reproducibility, fixed meaning.

Unlike speech stamps, a clichй (speech standard) is a set word- combination that can be reproduced in certain situations and areas of communication, which succinctly expresses an idea and does not cause a negative attitude on the part of the addressee (Копнина, Котюрова, 2014).

Methods and Discussion

A clichй is a constructive unit that preserves not only semantics but, in some cases, expressiveness as well.

Also, clichйs are defined as analytical lexical nominative non-figurative units, non-figurative expressions. Some linguists classify clichй-idioms as clichйs along with phraseological units, set phrases, and well-known quotations from other languages. Also clichй-stereotypes of different types are distinguished (speech, communicative, and speech mental) (Копнина, 2019). However, despite numerous studies, the issue of English communicative clichйs classification remains relevant.

The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare existing classifications of English clichйs.

Attempts to classify clichйs have been made repeatedly, mainly by those who have compiled practical manuals and guides on clichйs. For example, the compiler of the universal reference book «Gutes Deutsch in Schrift und Rede» L. Mackensen (Маккензен, 1998) distinguishes three types of clichйd units among set word-combinations and phrases: 1) clichй as a decoration of language (Formeln als Redeschmuck); 2) clichйs that should be avoided in the process of communication (Formeln, die man vermeiden soil); 3) petrified clichйs (Erstarrte Formeln).

In the course of analysis and comparison of different approaches to the classification of English clichйs on a situational basis, we can identify the most common of them, i.e., the classes distinguished by most researchers.

1. Clichйd appeals which help the interlocutors address each other (Anna, Mr. Brown, Ladies and gentlemen!).

2. Clichйs to attract attention, which in most cases help strangers to draw attention to their problems (Excuse me!).

3. Farewell clichйs that help to quit contact (Good-bye!, So long).

4. Clichйs-acquaintances that serve to introduce strangers to each other (Meet my friend, Dr M.).

5. Clichйs-congratulations, which are used on solemn occasions, often to encourage the listener (Many happy returns (of the day)!), and a wish expressed by the speaker as an opinion of the desirability of any event (All the best!).

6. Clichй-asking the interlocutor to visit some place, to take part in something (How / What about ...?), and suggestions that serve to express opinions about something as possible; present something for discussion as possible (How about ..., I think we should...).

7. A clichй-gratitude that expresses gratefulness to someone for their attention or service (Thankyou ever so much, A thousand thanks).

8. Clichй-request, i.e. the address of the speaker to the listener, calling to meet the needs, desires of the first (Be so kind as to...).

9. Clichй apology, which is an expression of regret over the concern that causes inconvenience to the interlocutor (I beg your pardon, Forgive me).

10. Clichйs of agreement or disagreement, communicating the views of communicators on the issue under discussion, which either coincide or not (I fully agree, Settled! I refuse point blank, I couldn't agree more, You've got a point, but...).

11. Clichйs that express the resolved position or, conversely, changeability, doubts of the speaker (I thought as much, I have some doubt).

12. Clichйs of approval and disapproval, by which the speaker recognizes something good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable (Withought fail, Nothing doing).

13. Clichй phrases that inform the interlocutor about the special emotional condition of the speaker (I say), which help the interlocutors appreciate each other's knowledge and actions (Goodfor you, Keep up your spirits).

14. Clichйs of consolation, which serve to calm the interlocutor with something joyful or to alleviate grief, or suffering (Take it easy).

15. Clichй-compassion, expressing the sensitive, compassionate attitude of the speaker to the experiences, the misery of others (Pour thing!).

16. Clichй advice, which helps the speaker give advice on how to do, what to do to the interlocutor, as well as give him instruction, or guidance (Take your time).

17. General colloquial formulas that achieve cohesion in conversation (If you ask me, Strictly speaking, In case), and word-parasites (Well, Simply/Just, So to say) (International scientific journal Topics in Linguistics).

In addition to the above classes, L. Zavhorodnia also provides conversational formulas for the appointment of the meeting, through which the interlocutors agree on the place and time of their next language contact, preference or lack thereof, indifference formulas that indicate the absence of any advantage of the interlocutor, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, frustration, ignorance, regret, or concern of the communicant (3aBropogHa, 2001).

M. Hunt (2000) in his work «Ideas and issues» also highlights colloquial clichйs to express an opinion (In my opinion); as well as clichйs that express a change of point of view (On second thoughts, I'm not sure about); as well as clichйs that express a change of point of view (It wouldn't work in practice, Prove it!); assessment (Let's look at this in stages); criticism (I think you are missing the point); recommendation (The main priority is ..., We need to consider); inquiry (Where do you draw the line on...?); conclusion (So far, so good), opportunity (That's bound to fail/succeed); consequence (If you/we did that, it might work); search for problem solution (How about ...? Have you considered...?); presentations (First of all, ... Secondly, ... Then...); generalization (Generally speaking ..., On the whole., As a rule.); logical choice (What's more., That proves my point); explanation (My point is that ..., What I really meant is.).

According to N. Vyshnevska, the last four classes are the classes of colloquial clichйs, which other researchers call «general colloquial formulas» used in the communication process to achieve logic and fluency. However, the researcher singles out clichйs that express doubts (It's too awful for words! Come off it!), irritation (It's the last straw), and also identifies metacommunicative clichйs of greetings (How do you do?), hesitation (It seems very much like it), warning (Look sharp), and threat (I'll give it hot to seem very much like you) (BumHeBCbKa, 2013).

In the above classifications, clichйs for expressing consequences, generalizations, clarifications, explanations, logical choice, views, and changes, clichйs of presentations, in our opinion, correspond to the so-called «general» clichйs selected by other researchers. The clichй of finding problem solutions and discussing plans is a clichй-statement, a sentence. Clichйs of expression of distrust are semantically close to clichйs of expression of doubt, hesitation, uncertainty, criticism, and, in our view, is a kind of disagreement.

For these reasons, such situational classifications are often intricate, overloaded with overlapping classes. However, such classifications are traditional ones, practically tested, and various linguists use them in their research. In particular, I. Dehtiarova uses them concerning stereotypical phrases (^errapbOBa, 2011).

In addition to the mentioned approaches to the English clichйs classification, there is another one, given by R. Delevskaya. She defines clichйs as situational statements, characterized by brevity, simplicity of syntactic structure, the presence of indicative elements linking them to the communication situation, facial expressions, gestures, poses (^eneBCKa, 2008).

In her classification, the researcher divides all situational statements into the following groups: 1) strongly clichйd formulas of language etiquette; 2) statements in their literal sense; 3) intermediate phenomena between the first and second type having an idiomatic meaning and correlated with the traditionally distinguished phraseological combinations. The researcher calls all situational statements `speech actions' which are almost identical to language formulas, and, the second group, in her opinion, includes clichйs and stamps, which have already been mentioned above.

The researcher classifies English clichйs concerning thematic and functional features that have not been encountered in linguistics before. The following language clichйs are distinguished:

1) informative (message, promise, consent, full consent, incomplete consent, refusal/denial, dissatisfaction);

2) motivational (request, encouragement, attempts to calm down, instruction, request, order, invitation, invitation to the table, proposal, advice, recommendation, warning/caution, prohibition, reproach);

3) evaluation-modal (compassion, encouragement, relief, joy / admiration, surprise, doubt, disappointment, approval, indignation / anger, disapproval / rejection);

4) contact (greetings and replies in response, questions about the state of affairs for establishing contact, possible answers to questions about the state of affairs, establishing contact during a telephone conversation, appeals, written and oral, acquaintance and possible answers in similar circumstances, interest, farewell (wishes at farewell, forms) farewell in written language), gratitude, apology, toasts, sympathy);

5) metacommunicative (introduction to the conversation, activation of the interlocutor's speech, signals of confirmation of verbal contact by the speaker, introductory remarks, denial of the right to speak, answer evasion, denial, clarification).

Thus, given classification, in our opinion, is quite reasonable and practically applicable in describing the arrangement of language clichйs in English. In addition to the apparent positive aspects of the proposed typology of clichйs, we must note some of its shortcomings: the verbal effect of encouragement attributes to both motivational and evaluative-modal verbal actions, some are relatively synonymous, their meanings have much in common, such as verbal actions of conversation and contact. Defining two verbal actions classes (gratitude and apology) is also disputable. But there is no separate class of verbal action-responses to gratefulness and apology.

It is important to note that these shortcomings are related to the thematic aspect of clichйs, which can be completely explained by the difficulty of identifying certain language situations.

Despite some shortcomings, R. Delevskaya's classification based on situational and functional features, in our opinion, is the most theoretically sound. The criteria underlying this classification most fully reveal the essence of language clichйs.

english language cliches metacommunicative

Conclusion and perspectives

Thus, the analysis of these classifications shows that there is no universal approach among researchers of English clichйs to the allocation of classes based on situational characteristics, as the classes of language clichйs selected by one linguist have controversy over clichй classes identified by other researchers.

Literature and sources

1. Вишневська Н.Ю. (2013). Кліше як мовна одиниця: проблеми кліше в мовознавстві. Наукові записки Ніжинського державного університету імені Миколи Гоголя. Філологічні науки: зб. наук. пр. / відп. ред. Г.В. Самойленко. Кн. 3. С. 33 - 36.

2. Дегтярьова І.О. (2011). Спортивні афоризми і кліше у підвищенні мовної майстерності студентів інституту фізичної культури на заняттях з іноземної мови. Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія «Філологія». Острог: Видавництво Національного університету «Острозька академія». Вип. 19. С. 505 - 510.

3. Делевска Р. (2008). Структура, семантика и прагматика языковых клише в русском языке. Studia Methodologica. 2008. Вип. 28. С. 44 - 58.

4. Завгородня Л.В. (2001). Мовний стереотип і словесний штамп у мові газет. Культура слова. Вип. 57 - 58. С. 10 - 15.

5. Копнина Г.А. (2019). Клише, или речевой стереотип. Энциклопедический словарь-справочник. Выразительные средства русского языка и речевые ошибки и недочеты / под ред. А.П. Сковородникова. М.: «ФЛИНТА». 480 с.

6. Копнина Г.А., Котюрова М.П. (2014). Клише, или Речевой стереотип. Эффективное речевое общение (Базовые компетенции): словарь-справочник. Красноярск, 2014, С. 213 -214.

7. Красных В.В. (1998). Виртуальная реальность или реальная виртуальность? Человек. Сознание. Коммуникация: монография. М.: Диалог-МГУ. 352 с.

8. Кубрякова Е.С. (2008). Номинативный аспект речевой деятельности / отв. ред. Б.А. Серебреников. 2-е изд. Москва: Изд-во ЛКИ. 160 с. International scientific journal Topics in Linguistics. [International scientific journal Topics in Linguistics: сайт.

9. Mackensen L. (1998). Gutes Deutsch in Schrift und Rede / Маккензен Лутц. Немецкий язык. Универсальный справочник / пер. с немецкого Е. Захарова. М.: Аквариум. 592 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru