TYPES OF ADDRESSEES IN THE SPEECH ACT OF TEASING IN MODERN ENGLISH DISCOURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.2.2019.192354Keywords:
speech act of teasing, addresser, addressee, direct addressee, meta-addressee, quasiaddresseeAbstract
Introduction. The article is devoted to the study of the types of addressees in the speech act of teasing in modern English discourse.Purpose. The paper aims to indentify the types of addressees according to the contribution and role they play in the communication where teasing occurs.
Methods. In the differentiation of the types of addressees, a discourse and speech act analyses have been used from a pragmalinguistic perspective.
Results. This study shows that in multiparty discourse the participants may acquire different roles – those of a target addressee (addressee-victim), direct (real addressee), quasiaddressee, and metaaddressee. Taking into account the number of participants of the communicative process the conversation can take shape of a dialogue or polylogue. Proceeding from this fact the addressee can be of four types: a) a direct addressee (who is the target and to whom the addresser speaks explicitly). The direct addressee can be either a true recipient of a speech act of teasing or quasiaddressee); b) a quasiaddressee (a false addressee) to whom a speech act of teasing is directed only formally, however the true recipient is not he, but the one who is termed a meta-addressee); c) a meta-addressee is a target addressee, a true recipient to whom the message
is intended but is sent indirectly via others, d) a listener (an indirect addressee who acoustically perceives a speech act of teasing along with the meta-addressee). The listener is a recipient of a speech act of informative. The illocutionary force of an informative is to make the listener
conscious of the fact that teasing is taking place here and now.
Conclusion. The presence of a third party has an intensifying effect on the illocutionary force of friendly teasing. If a target addressee fails to understand teasing as a friendly one, he may be offended and as a consequence ‘lose his face’ The mechanism of the reception and proper
interpretation of the speech act of teasing needs further investigation.
References
Андрієнко, Т. П. (2002). Мовленнєвий акт іронії в англійській мові (на матеріалі художньої літератури XVI та XX століть). (Автореф. канд. філол. наук). Харківський національний університет імені В.Н. Каразіна, Харків, Україна.
Безугла, Л. Р. (2007). Вербалізація імпліцитних смислів у німецькомовному діалогічному дискурсі: Монографія. Харків: ХНУ імені В. Н. Каразіна.
Воронцова, Т. А. (2006). Речевая агрессия в коммуникативно-дискурсивной парадигме. Вестник ВГУ. Серия “Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация”, 1, 83-86.
Доронина, С. В. (2005). Нормативная интерпретация приёмов высмеивания в свете статистических данных. Юрислингвистика-6, 21-31.
Доронина, С. В. (2009). “Насмешка” в зеркале обыденного метаязыкового сознания. Обыденное метаязыковое сознание: онтологические и гносеологические аспекты, 202-213.
Карасик, В. И. (2012). Концептуализация насмешки в языковом сознании. Язык. Текст. Дискурс: научный альманах Ставропольского отделения РАЛК, 10, 51-64.
Кларк, Г.Г., Карлсон, Т.Б. (1986). Слушающие и речевой акт. В Б.Ю. Городецкий (ред.) Новое в зарубежной лингвистике, 17, 270-321. М.: Прогресс.
Костяев, А. П. (2011). Вербальная агрессия в профессиональной коммуникации. (Автореф. канд. филол. наук). Тверь, Российская Федерация.
Ножевникова, Е. Г. (2015). Прагматическая ситуация насмешки и её реализация в речи представителей британского лингвосоциума. (Автореф. канд. филол. наук). Нижнегородский государственный лингвистический университет, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация.
Паремузашвили, Э. Э. (2012). Непрямая коммуникация в структуре агрессивного речевого акта (на примере насмешки и иронии). Вопросы когнитивной линвгистики, 1, 136-142.
Почепцов, Г. Г. (2009). Избранные труды по лингвистике. Харьков : ХНУ им. В. Н. Каразина.
Санников, А. В. (2003). Смех и насмешка в русской наивной этике. Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: сборник трудов международной конференции “Диалог 2003”. М.: Наука. Режим доступа: http://www.dialog-21.ru/Archive/2003/Sannikov.htm
(дата звернення: 23.06.2019).
Седов, К. Ф. (2007). Речевая агрессия и агрессивность как черта речевого портрета. Социальная психолингвистика. Хрестоматия, 250-277.
Трофимова, Н. А. (2008). Экспрессивные речевые акты в диалогическом дискурсе. СПб.: Изд-во ВВМ.
Щербинина, Ю. В. (2006). Вербальная агрессия. УРСС.
Boxer, D., & Cortes-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding and biting: conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 275-295.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in social interaction (Р. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219-253.
Eder, D. (1991). The role of teasing in adolescent peer group culture. Sociological Studies of Child Development, 4, 181-197.
Eder, D. (1993). “Go get ya a french!”: Romantic and sexual teasing among adolescent girls. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (Р. 17-31). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass: Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1284-1299.
Dynel, M. (2011). The pragmatics of humour across discourse. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hay, J. (1995). Only teasing! New Zealand English Newsletter, 9, 32-35.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709-742.
Haugh, M. (2017). Teasing. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 204-218). New York, NY, United States: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Keltner, D., Capps, L. M., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London : Longman.
Norrick, N. R. (1994). Conversation joking: Humor in everyday talk. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Norrick, N. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (9), 1333-1359.
Pawluk, C. J. (1989). Social construction of teasing. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19, 145-167.
Warm, T. (1997). The role of teasing in development and vice-versa. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 18, 97-101.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
1. Authors take full responsibility for the content of the articles as well as the fact of their publication.2. All the authors must follow the current requirements for publication of manuscripts. Plagiarism itself and its representation as the original work as well as submission to the editorial office previously published articles are unacceptable. In case of plagiarism discovery the authors of the submitted materials take all the responsibility.
3. Authors shall inform the editor of any possible conflict of interests which could be influenced by the publication of the manuscript results.
4. The editorial board has the right to refuse publication of an article in case of non-compliance with these requirements.
