VOT ÉTO DA! SOME REMARKS ON ASSESSMENT IN RUSSIAN

Iryna  Lenchuk; Amer  Ahmed

doi:10.21618/fil2226078l

Auteurs

Iryna Lenchuk Department of English Language and Literature College of Arts and Applied Sciences, Dhofar University
Amer Ahmed Department of English Language and Literature College of Arts and Applied Sciences, Dhofar University

DOI :

https://doi.org/10.21618/fil2226078l

Mots-clés :

spoken language, colloquial speech studies, assessment as social action, linguistic relativity

Résumé

This article investigates assessment in Russian as a type of social action by using the approach to linguistic relativity where the diversity of lexicosyntactic resources available to the speakers of natural languages brings about different collateral effects to the social act of assessment. An analysis of selected samples of a Russian spoken corpus presented in this paper shows that specific lexicosyntactic resources available to the speakers of Russian, such as flexible word order and particles (e.g. da, nu, vot, to), have specific collateral effects. In addition to building agreement in assessment, these lexicosyntactic resources (i) create the context of closeness where more can be said with less overtly expressed linguistic means, and (ii) intensify the social act of assessment by making it more emotionally charged.

Références

Bailyn, J. F. (2011), The syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press.

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts I., & Sheehan, M. (2009). Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.

Bogdanova-Beglarian N., Martynenko G., & Sherstinova T. (2015), “The ‘One Day of Speech’ corpus: Phonetic and syntactic studies of everyday spoken Russian”. In Ronzhin A., Potapova R., Fakotakis N. (Eds) Speech and Computer. SPECOM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9319. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Borger, Y. V. (2004), “Kompleksnyǐ analiz rechevykh aktov negativnoǐ reactsii (na meteriale sovremennykh dramaticheskikh proizvedeniǐ”. [Complex analysis of speech acts of negative reaction (based on the analysis of modern drama)]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tiumensk State University, Russia.

Bragina, N., & Sharonov, I. (2019), “‘Pedagogical’ aggression in Russian everyday communication”. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (4). doi: 10.22363/2312-9182- 2019-23-4-975-993. 975-993.

Camacho, J. A. (2013), Null subjects. Cambridge University Press.

Enfield, N. J. (2007), A grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goodwin, C., and Goodwin, M. (1987), “Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments”. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-54.

Hakulinen, A., & Sorjonen, M-L. (2016), “Designing utterances for action: Verb repeat responses to assessment”. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions. Helsinki: Studia Fennica Linguistica. 152-180.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013), “The conversation analytic approach to transcription”. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell Publishing. 57-76.

Heritage, J., and Paymond, G. (2005), “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38.

Mey, J. L. (2006), “Pragmatics: Overview”. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed. Elsevier. 51-62.

The National Corpus of Russian. (2019), Retrieved from http://www.ruscorpora.ru/new/en/.

Pomerantz, A. (1984), “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes”. In M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 57-101.

Sacks, H. (1995), Lectures on conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Sidnell, J. (2009a), “Language specific resources in repair and assessment”. In J Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press. 303-320.

Sidnell, J. (2009b), Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Sidnell, J. (2009c), “Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis”. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 3-27.

Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2012), “Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity”. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 302-333.

Sorjonen, M.-L., and Hakulinen, A. (2009), “Alternative responses to assessments”. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. 281-303. Cambridge University Press.

Tanaka, H. (2016). “Lexico-grammatical structures of agreements with assessments in English conversation: From a Japanese perspective”. Journal of Pragmatics 100, 8-24.

Vepreva, I., Shalina, I., Matveeva, T. (2019), “Russian colloquial speech: Aspects of research and relevant issues”. Quaestio Rossica, 7(3), 919–936. 10.15826/qr.2019.3.415.

Vlasyan, G. & Kozhukhova, I. (2019), “Formal and informal Russian invitation: Context and politeness strategies”. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (4), 994-1013. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-4-994-1013.

Zemskaia, E. A., and Kapanadze, L.A. (Eds.) (1978), Russkaia razgovornaia rech: Texty. (Russian spoken language: Collection of texts). Moskva: Nauka.