Imagine that you are stopped after every second word, pointing out mistakes in pronunciation, grammar, and so on. In the end, this conversation will be perceived as a negative experience. Forget the mistakes, just be happy with what your students say. Yes! Look how well they speak! It is possible that they have a lot of grammatical errors in their speech, and their opinion is wrong, but isn't it enough just that they use English to express their own attitude?!
Students, especially at the initial stage of language learning, are easily distracted, lose their train of thought if the teacher constantly interrupts them. Of course, you will want to correct mistakes directly during speech, but keep nodding while smiling, because if you start interrupting a student, then a miracle of overcoming fear public speaking may not happen, and the student will remain a brilliant connoisseur of English grammar, who does not dare to speak, for fear of making a mistake.
Undoubtedly, all the most typical mistakes should be summarized, disassembled, but after speaking, perhaps at, or in a separate lesson.
Show students that you consider their needs and interests!
We all love to talk about topics that are close to us, referring to a funny story in our childhood, in our everyday life and life in our country - talking about our own experience in a particular issue, we feel our own importance. Why not ask the students at the stage of explaining the topic to the teacher with the question: “What do you think?”. If a teacher, whom we respect, is interested in your opinion, and it really matters to him, this can be a great incentive to start using the language being studied.
Provide students with key ideas of the topic being discussed
One of the things that I use all the time is a diagram, or a set of key ideas or questions (“Life Map” or “Net work”) that are worth discussing when analyzing a particular topic. "Life Map" allows students to see signal points that can be relied upon at the moment of speech.
If visual cues fail, give students language constructs to support while speaking.
Often the key to unlocking a student's potential lies on the surface, sometimes you just need to offer students a few language constructs, explaining the use cases that will help them connect disparate ideas together, and in the end they get a great answer on a given topic. The teacher can simply write language structures such as In my opinion…, Personally…, As far as I know… on the board to help students express their own opinions.
Use pair and group work to develop your speaking skills!
Well organized allows students to feel more free and relaxed while speaking. The practical use of language, combined with the creativity of group work, can have a positive impact on student motivation.
Give students time to respond
Is it realistic to expect that each student will be able to instantly answer the question posed? Of course not. Some students need time to think about a question or situation. So if you want them to "finally" talk, you need to give them those precious seconds they need. If this is difficult for you, ask them a question and give them time to think, and in the meantime discuss the issue with other students who are willing to answer.
Use learning aids
The use of interesting audio material, videos, excerpts from favorite videos and cartoons, thematic pictures, cards with role-playing tasks will help organize a favorable environment for oral communication.
Don't waste class time with useless stories, give this opportunity to students
Often the teacher tries to take a leadership position during the speaking process, not suspecting that the students themselves are able to come to a solution to a particular problem, one has only to give them the opportunity and encourage their activity in every possible way. Do not fill the silence in class with useless chatter. Of course, you can discuss everyday problems with students, but leave it for the very beginning or end of the lesson, or, even better, for recess. During the lesson, try to focus all your efforts on getting the students to speak. Try to give students the opportunity to ask questions to each other. Encourage students who ask questions that require reflection and a detailed answer. The teacher should perform a regulatory function throughout the lesson.
Imagine that you do not understand your native language
If students try to say something in their native language, just say that you don't understand them. Ask them to say what they want in English. Try to keep this situation not stressful and have a comic character, which, ultimately, will have a practical result.
Reduce the difficulty level of the question posed, depending on the level of knowledge of the student
Create an atmosphere of everyone's involvement in the speaking process by asking easier questions to students who are reluctant to speak during the lesson, gradually increasing the level of difficulty of the questions.
Try to be a little more compassionate and tolerant
Put yourself in the shoes of students who are required to speak in a language that is foreign to them. Naturally, you will feel insecure at first, awkward and hardly willing to start talking from the very beginning of the lesson. The teacher needs to pre-set the students in the right way and create an atmosphere conducive to communication.
Don't humiliate!
Students often give short or incorrect answers because they don't really have anything to say on the subject or they don't know enough about the topic. Instead of humiliating a student by giving their answer a negative assessment, help your students by asking them appropriate follow-up questions and pushing them to correct judgment or answer.
In conclusion, it is worth saying that just watching and waiting for your students to speak English is not enough. In my opinion, the trust factor is key point to succeed in acquiring skills oral speech. After the student has confidence that sooner or later he will start speaking English in high level and his teacher will undoubtedly support him in this, his successes in this difficult task will be significant. The duty of the teacher is not only to teach, but also to motivate students to express their own thoughts in the language being studied.
Lesson type: lesson combined, integrated.
Purpose: To form students' understanding of the types of texts: narration, reasoning, description.
- consolidate knowledge of monologue and dialogue;
- introduce the types of texts: narrative, description, reasoning;
- generalize the skills and abilities of monologue speech in Russian and English: use various typical phrases when describing objects and yourself.
Developing goal: to develop the speech of students, the cognitive interest of students, the ability to compare, generalize, draw conclusions, expand their vocabulary and horizons.
Educational goal: to cultivate the desire for tolerant communication with others, to educate students in a culture of thinking and communication.
Teachers: Vylegzhanina Lyudmila Alekseevna ( Teacher 1- teacher primary school), Kalashnikova Yulia Nikolaevna ( Teacher 2- English teacher).
Group characteristics:
The level of English proficiency is elementary.
Age - 8-9 years.
Forms of organization of cognitive activity: individual, frontal.
Teaching methods:
1) according to the source of knowledge: verbal, visual;
2) according to the level of cognitive activity: problematic, explanatory-motivating, reproductive, explanatory-illustrative;
3) according to the principle of division of knowledge: analytical, comparative, generalizing, classification;
4) according to the degree of interaction: presentation, conversation, independent work.
Equipment: cards with terms, cards with illustrations, cards with tasks, textbook, audio recording on a PC.
Words and structures:
He is… She is… It is…
My name is… I am… I can… I have got…
Big, small, long, short, tall, young, old, merry, sad, fat,
slim, yellow, green, blue, red, orange, white, grey, black.
On the board: Topic: Why? Which? How it was? Terms: “integrated”, “synonyms”, “narrative”, “description”, “reflection”.
Lesson structure:
I. Organizational moment. Knowledge update. Teacher 1.
Hello dear guys!
Listen carefully and say what is being said.
It takes place at school. It can be interesting for someone, for someone it is short, for someone it is long. Someone is waiting for him to get an A... But for everyone, without exception, he is useful, all children take out something new from him ( lesson).
Today's lesson is unusual: a joint lesson in rhetoric and English. This lesson is called integrated.(On the desk)
VOCABULARY WORK
Integration - (from the Latin integrrum) - the whole; (from the Latin integratio) - restoration, replenishment. In the general case, it means Association, interpenetration.
So we will penetrate the topic of our lesson from two sides.
Why did we combine these subjects in one lesson? What do the subjects “rhetoric” and “English language” have in common? ( Speech, conversation, communication)
What words can replace the word "communication"? Pick up synonyms (On the desk) to this word, i.e. words that have the same meaning but sound different.
What is the name of the speech situation when 2 people are talking? ( Dialog)
What is the name of the speech situation when one person tells something, informs others? ( Monologue)
Which interlocutor is interesting to listen to? (Tempo, volume, intonation, facial expressions, gestures)
II. revision. Teacher 2.
T .: Guys, now listen to the audio recording in English and say that it is a dialogue or a monologue? Appendix 5
T.: Listen attentively. Let's start. (Teacher plays audio and pauses)
III. Fizkultminutka. Teacher 2.
T: Stand up, please! close your eyes. Let's remember the commands.
Stop! Listen! look! Come here! Be quiet! clap! Jump! No! Yes! (The teacher calls the teams, the students show them with their eyes closed)
IV. Work on the topic. Teacher 1.
1. Statement of the problem.
Read the topic of our lesson. Guess from the title what you will learn in the lesson. (Students give their guesses)
A little later, we will find out if your assumptions are correct.
2. Work with the textbook p. 187.
Three guys went to the circus. The most remarkable thing in the performance was the trained tigers. But each of the guys told about them in different ways, although they started with the following sentence “Yesterday I went to the circus and saw tigers” (3 students read the stories of the children).
What text was narration(On the desk), i.e. told about what happened in the circus, what did the tigers do? ( 1 )
In what text is description (On the desk) animals, what were the tigers? ( 2 )
What text contains meditation (On the desk) about what he saw, why do tigers obey the trainer? ( 3 )
We read texts of three types: narrative description, reasoning.
Read the rule on the cards and save these cards as a memo. (students read the rules). Appendix 4
V. Consolidation. Teacher 1.
1. The game "Types of texts" (using cards with letters).
We are asked different questions, we answer them, and we get different texts - descriptions, reasoning, narratives. Listen to my questions and think about in which cases the respondent will describe, in which he will tell, and in which he will argue and show the answer with a card.
- What happened yesterday at the competition? ( P)
- What are these flowers- orchids? ( O)
- What Will you take a bag with you on vacation? ( R)
Could you explain why did you quarrel with Sasha? ( R)
- Tell me how you spent day off? ( P)
No, I cannot agree with you. From what did you do that? ( R)
And now we will play the game “Yes or No?” But before that, let's remember the adjectives (the teacher shows pictures and calls adjectives, students repeat with the whole class).
Now, let's play the game "Yes or No?" (The teacher shows the students illustrations, describes the images (e.g. He is old / it is small, etc.) if he speaks correctly, the students answer in chorus - Yes, if he says an incorrect statement, everyone answers - No)
The Game “DESCRIBE THE PICTURE” Teacher 2.
OK. Look at the blackboard. Translate these structures. He is… She is… It is… Describe what you can see in the picture using the structures.
S2: She is young! etc.
Now, I will tell us the English poem. Listen to me! (Shows with gestures):
I can jump I can run
I can sing I can dance
I can swim I can't fly
I can climb and say “Goodbye!”
Guys, what sounded - a monologue or a dialogue? ( Monologue)
What about text type? ( Narration)
VII. Creative task. Teacher 1 and Teacher 2
Teacher 1. Guys, now you are given the next creative task. Plan your story:
(Option 1 - in English: Hello! My name is ... I can ... I can't ... I have got ... I like ...; Option 2 - in Russian:
1. What is your name?
2. How old are you?
3. What grade are you in? Where?
4. What can you do?
5. Do you have a friend in class? What's his name?
(Speech samples and questions are presented on the board)).
Teacher 2: Let's check up! Speak about yourself. Who is ready?
Teacher 2: What type of texts are these stories? ( Narration)
What did we hear - a dialogue or a monologue? ( Monologue)
VIII. Summing up the lesson. Teacher 1.
And now back to the topic of our lesson. Remember your assumptions. Were they true?
What does the word “why” mean in the topic of the lesson? -( reasoning); "which?" -( description); "how it was?" -( narration). Well done boys!
IX. Homework.
Teacher 1. Prepare a message: 1 row - description; 2 row - narration; 3 row - reasoning about the animal or plant of America;
Teacher 2. Complete the task on the cards (task 1 - connect pictures with words, task 2 - write, this is a dialogue or monologue).
CHAPTER 1. A RHETORICAL QUESTION IN MODERN
LINGUISTIC LITERATURE AND IN THE SYSTEM OF EXPRESSION OF THE INTENSITY CATEGORY.
1.1. Rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature.
CHAPTER 2
2.1. Rhetorical question, its syntactic features and structural forms.
2.1.1 Syntactic types of a rhetorical question.
2.1.2 Structural forms of a rhetorical question.
2.2. Contextual conditionality of a rhetorical question. f 2.2.1. A rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which does not depend on the context.
2.2.2. A rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which depends on the context.
CHAPTER 3. RHETORICAL QUESTION IN MONOLOGICAL UNITY.
3.2. A rhetorical question in the character's reasoning.
F 3.3. Rhetorical question in the narrative.
3.4. Rhetorical question in the description.
CHAPTER 4. RHETORICAL QUESTION IN DIALOGICAL F UNITY.
4.1. A rhetorical question as a response.
4.1.1. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing agreement.
4.1.2. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing disagreement.
4.1.3. A rhetorical question in a response as a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement.
4.1.4. A rhetorical question is a component of a dialogical quotation in a response as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement.
4.2. Rhetorical question as an initiating remark.
4.2.1. Rhetorical question in constative dialogical unities.
4.2.2. Rhetorical question in constative-quesitive dialogic unities. f 4.2.3. A rhetorical question in discordant dialogic unities. Conclusions.
Recommended list of dissertations
Implicative superphrasal units in English 2003, candidate of philological sciences Melnikova, Oksana Vladislavovna
Text structures with a long verb form in English 2001, candidate of philological sciences Vasyukova, Svetlana Valeryanovna
Communicative and pragmatic features of rhetorical questions-reactions 2010, candidate of philological sciences Skorodumova, Elena Andreevna
Pragmatic Features of a Constative Speech Act as an Initiating Replica of an Informal Interview: Based on the Material of the English-Language Press 2010, candidate of philological sciences Shishkina, Tatyana Semenovna
Double negation in a simple sentence: Based on the material of the English language 2006, candidate of philological sciences Evsina, Marina Vladimirovna
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Rhetorical question in English"
The present work is devoted to the description of the structural and semantic features of rhetorical questions (QQs) in English, their stylistic function of utterance intensification and their function in monologic and dialogic text structures.
The rhetorical question is a phenomenon that is widespread in speech, which is why it has attracted and still attracts the attention of researchers. Over the past decades, attempts to define a rhetorical question and describe the features of its functioning have been carried out in a number of works by leading Russian and foreign researchers [Zhinkin 1955; Skrebnev 1975; Galperin 1977; Bloch 1983; Weinrich 1983, 1993; Chkhetiani 1987; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1982, 1994 and others].
The problem of non-interrogative use of interrogative sentences, including rhetorical questions, is the subject of a number of dissertations and other scientific studies [Bloch 1983; Skrebnev 1983; Ostroukhova 1983; Konrad 1985; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992; Sergeeva 1993; Fedorova, 1996; Kotovskaya 1999 and others]
However, in the existing interpretations of the rhetorical question, a number of contradictions can be traced. In some works, a rhetorical question is called an expressively colored negation [Russian Grammar 1980: 395], in others it is an affirmative message or motivation [Velik 1993: 138], in others it is a hidden affirmation or negation [Zhinkin 1955; Akhmanova 1966; Skrebnev 1975; Berdnik 1988; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Khaikova 1999; Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1994]. The term "rhetorical question" itself is often replaced by the terms "pseudo-interrogative sentence", "non-interrogatively used interrogative sentence", expressive-stating interrogative sentence, "false question", false question, "imaginary question", "pseudo question" [Bally 1961: 308 ; Restan 1972; Dolinin 1978; Chkhetiani 1987; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992].
In * different studies, certain aspects of interrogative sentences are touched upon, which can be interpreted as rhetorical questions. So, in the work of JI.A. Ostroukhova. only non-pronominal interrogative sentences are considered, functioning as a reactive cue. Research by S.S. Kotovskaya is devoted to the role of prosody in the differentiation of the German rhetorical question1. T. A. Sergeeva considers rhetorical! question in> German dialogical speech.
Thus, such a problem as the development of the generally accepted concept of "rhetorical question" has not yet found its solution, there is no single approach to identifying the fundamental features of rhetoric, there is no systematic description of the structural, semantic and pragmatic features of the rhetorical question; there are no works in which the functions of the rhetorical question, its role, in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity and in the system of intensification of the statement would be studied.
The relevance ■ of the study is due1 to the prevalence of rhetorical questions in speech and the lack of a systematic description of their structural, semantic, stylistic features, their functions as an utterance intensifier in monologue/dialogic speech, and the correlation* of affirmative characteristics of the parts. DE, places in the logical-semantic structure of SFU.
The development of new areas of modern linguistics - text linguistics and pragmalinguistics - requires the study of the communicative features of language structures, taking into account the relationship between their explicit and implicit characteristics, their autonomous and context-related meanings.
Modern linguistics proceeds from the recognition that final product The grammar of a language is not a sentence, but a coherent text. The spread of grammatical interest beyond the sentence invariably changes the perspective of analysis as a whole and leads to a restructuring of traditional approaches [Pozdeev 1981: 121]. An analysis of such a phenomenon as a rhetorical question is impossible without considering it against the background of a larger structure, i.e. text.
Until recently, the text in its relation to the sentence was reduced to the concept of a diagnosing context, that is, the textual minimum that is necessary to reveal the functional purpose of various aspects, forms and elements of the sentence [Bloch 2000: 113]. Currently, the subject of research is the construction of the text, its constitutive elements, both formal and content. In the present study, following T. van Dijk, the text means a complex multidimensional formation, consisting of interrelated factors and elements, where not just the linear nature of the chain is important, but the nature of the relationship between sentences in their coherent sequence [Dijk 1989: 126]. As M.Ya. Bloch, in the objective reality of language, the text exists not only as a contextual minimum for the diagnosis of meaning, but as a complete whole, whether it be a written monologue essay or an oral dialogue [Bloch 2000: 113].
Recognizing the entire conventionality of the distinction between monologue and dialogue, which is pointed out by Russian and foreign researchers [Vygotsky 1934; Bakhtin 1979; Radzikhovsky 1985, 1988; Semenenko 1996: 8; Yakubinsky 1986: 26, 34; Vinokur 1990: 217; Makarov 1998: 71; Myerson 1994 and others], we will distinguish between a monologue and a dialogue, defining a monologue as a unidirectional structure, a linear chain of sentences; and dialogue as a multidirectional structure, alternating a chain of sentences formed by the alternation of statements by two or more participants in a speech act [Bloch 2000: 116; Moskalskaya 1981: 123].
A monologue is a form of speech formed as a result of active speech activity, designed for passive and indirect perception. Monologue speech can be defined as an intrapersonal speech act, which is characterized by significant segments of text, consisting of structurally and meaningfully related statements that have an individual compositional structure and relative semantic completeness [Vinokur 1990: 310].
A special role in distinguishing between types and forms of speech in a text is played by super-phrasal unity (SPU) - the unity of two or more independent sentences characterized by semantic, communicative and structural completeness and developing one “micro-theme” [Galperin 1981: 67; Kukharenko 1988: 68-69; Gak 2000: 777-778].
Dialogue is an ordered sequence of verbal actions carried out by at least two participants in communication, during which the communicants exchange roles and jointly create a text consisting of dialogic units (DE) [Shvedova 1956; Valyusinskaya 1979; Chakhoyan 1979; Slavgorodskaya 1986; Hundsnurscher 1998 and others]
Usually DU is defined as a monothematic unit of dialogue, given by a communicative intention and expressed in logical-semantic coherence, as well as grammatical, lexical, prosodic (full or partial) integrity [Moskalskaya 1981: 42-43; Mikhailov 1994: 152 and others]. DU is isolated from the dialogue on the basis of the completeness of the communicative interaction. The main signal of its border is a change in communicative intention. The intentionality of the speech course is a condition for normal communication [Komina 1983: 127-128; Susov 1984: 7; Pocheptsov 1986: 74; Romanov 1989: 41 and others].
The leading role in the formation of the DU structure belongs to pragmatic factors [Gasteva 1990: 3]. The pragmatic meaning of the response cue is inextricably linked with the pragmatic meaning of the initiating cue, i.e. it is largely determined by the pragmatic type - DE, of which the response cue is a part. The correlation of pragmatic types of sentences and pragmatic types of DU allows us to distinguish between DU by the final intention of the speech act that constitutes all pragmatic types of sentences identified in pragmatic syntax based on the structure of a speech act without taking into account the two-way nature of communication can be attributed to the types used as the first part of the DU [Chikurova 1985: 129-135]. In the study, we take as a basis the classification of speech acts proposed by G.G. Pocheptsov, in which five pragmatic types of sentences are distinguished - constative, promissive, and menasive, performative, directives, quesitive - supplementing it with some other types of speech acts (phatic, emotive and etc.).
The object of the research is a rhetorical question as an intensifier of an utterance, its structural and stylistic features, contextual conditionality, and its role in dialogic and monologue text structures.
The theoretical basis of the study is the achievements of domestic and foreign linguistics in the field of text linguistics [Dyck 1976; Galperin 1981; Moskalskaya 1981; Goncharova 1983; Kukharenko 1988; Bogdanov 1993; Paducheva 1996; Gak 2000 and others], pragmatists [Austin 1986; Searle 1986; G. G. Pocheptsov 1971, 1981; G. G. Pocheptsov (Jr.) 1983, 1987; Susov 1980, 1983, 1986; O. G. Pocheptsov 1986; Semenenko 1996; Makarov 1998 and others]1, cognitive linguistics [Dyck 1989; Paducheva 1996 and others), stylistics [Galperin 1977; Arnold 1981, Skrebnev 1975, 1985; Turansky 1990, 1991 and others].
The purpose of the study is to implement a comprehensive, integral approach to the study of such a complex phenomenon as a rhetorical question.
The goal is to solve the following research problems:
1) identify the structural and syntactic features of a rhetorical question;
2) analyze the conditions for the dependence of a rhetorical question on the context;
3) determine the role of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity;
4) describe the functions of a rhetorical question in monologue speech (author's / character; external / internal), determine the level of intensity of the statement represented by a rhetorical question;
5) describe the ratio of affirmative characteristics of a rhetorical question and initiating / response replicas in a dialogic unity.
Scientific novelty dissertation is that it for the first time attempted an integrated approach to the study of a rhetorical question: a systematic description of its structural-syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic features, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of parts of a dialogic unity is given, in which the rhetorical question acts as an initiating or response cue ; its role as an intensifier in monological superphrasal unities is determined, the place of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the text is determined; the contextual conditionality of rhetorical questions is analyzed, the dependence / independence of rhetorical questions from the context is described.
The paper gives a definition of a rhetorical question, which reflects the linguistic nature of the phenomenon under study; signs of rhetoric are described.
The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that it determines the place of the rhetorical question in the system of means * expressing the semantic category of intensity in the English language; the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of monological and dialogic SPU is described; the mechanism of interaction between the affirmativeness of the RE and the affirmativeness of the reacting / initiating replica in DU was revealed; structural-semantic types of rhetorical questions are described; the conditions for dependence / independence of RT from the context are defined. The results obtained may contribute to further "research in the field of the rhetorical question, for example, in the social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling-communicative processes." (Verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions4 of the subject, etc.).
The practical value of the work is determined by the possibility of using the results of the research in lecture courses and seminars on general linguistics, theoretical grammar, stylistics of the English language, special courses on linguistics of text and colloquial speech, in the practice of teaching English, in the preparation of teaching aids * management of term papers and theses.
The solution of the formulated problems was carried out by applying a "complex research methodology. The main method of analysis is the transformation method. The procedure for identifying an indirect statement of a rhetorical question is the transformation of an interrogative structure into an affirmative one (positive or negative in form):
1) Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw 1: 60) -» I should not waste your time in discussing what is inevitable.
2) Isn "t the answer obvious? (Sheldon: 362) -> The answer is obvious.
The work also used such methods of analysis as contextual-semantic, statistical, method of logical-semantic analysis.
This dissertation completes the list of works that use logical tools. The advantage of the logical-semantic approach is that a simple logical toolkit is used as a means of obtaining new linguistic data about the types of text structures. The term "logical-semantic" reflects the essence of the approach: semantics is the goal of research, logic and its apparatus are the means [Inshina 1989: 7]. Formal logic describes the relationship between logical objects with the help of five intentional connections: conjunction (connection of the type "A and B" - AdB), disjunction (connection of the type "A or B" - AvB), negation (connection of the type "A, not A" - A, A), implications “If A, then B” - Az>B), and equivalence (connection of the form “A, that is B” - A~B) [Kondakov 1976: 149-150, 192-193, 264, 421-423, 677]. This list should be supplemented with the relation of anti-implication (“A, but not B” - A-0B)1, which combines signs of denial and implication and is expressed in opposing and concessive structures [Chikurova 1981, 1987].
Sentimental connectives are marked with language units that act as logical constants. The marker of the conjunctive connection is and, the equivalence - that is, the markers of the right-hand implication (the antecedent precedes the consequent) - so, therefore, as a result of, the left-hand implication (the consequent precedes the antecedent) - that as, for, because [Chikurova 1981, 1987]. Determining the presence of a marker or substituting it is a procedure for identifying the SFU of the corresponding logical-semantic type.
The research material included about 5,000 examples obtained from the works of English and American authors, including fiction and
1 Following M.F. Chikurova uses here a sign that reflects the conjunction of elements of the surface structure and the disjunction of the deep structure [Chikurova 1991], publicistic texts, as well as the material of the Dictionary of Quotations (The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations).
The following provisions are put forward for defense:
1. Rhetorical, the question is an intensifier, the degree of intensity of which increases with the increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition.
2. A rhetorical question has all syntactic forms * of an interrogative sentence and all structural forms.
3. Rhetorical question - in - monologue, unity is used, mainly, in reasoning or is an element1 of reasoning * in * as part of other compositional-speech forms, participating in the formation of a logical-semantic implication or anti-implication, expressing a cause, effect or effect opposite to what is expected. The intensity of a rhetorical question in reasoning* can reach the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity.
4. A rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both an initiating and a response remark: In the role of a response, a rhetorical question expresses both agreement and disagreement with the initiating remark. The form of expressing consent is affirmative, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmative, coinciding with the initiating remark.
5. A rhetorical question is an amalgamated speech act and is introduced in the text by speaking verbs (to say, to tell, etc.): speech1 act. Another proof of the importance of the form of RW is the possibility of answering it. Interrogativeness as the meaning of the form is the intensifier of the statement and the third sign of materiality direct meaning indirect speech act.
6. Rhetoric more rhetorical questions is free from context, since it is determined by the syntactic structure of the RW and its internal semantics. The rhetoric of context-dependent rhetorical questions is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes, including the volume of the entire work, which is typical for a rhetorical question in strong positions of the text.
Approbation of the work was carried out at scientific conferences of teachers of the Department of Linguistics and Translation of the Tula State University (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005), at the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Languages and the Picture of the World" (Tula State University, 2002); at scientific and methodological seminars of graduate students. Based on the research materials, seven scientific articles have been published.
The main goal and objectives of the study determine the structure of the dissertation work, which consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a list of scientific and fiction literature, and a list of dictionaries.
Similar theses in the specialty "Germanic languages", 10.02.04 VAK code
Question-answer unities in the dialogue "adult - child": on the material of the Russian language 2006, Doctor of Philology Kazakovskaya, Victoria Viladievna
Perlocutionary Semantics of Response Replicas: On the Material of Dramatic Works of Modern French Authors 2002, candidate of philological sciences Karyagina, Natalia Fedorovna
Types of Replies in Dialogic Unity with a Negative Question: Based on French and Italian Languages 2010, candidate of philological sciences Belova, Natalia Sergeevna
Semantics and paradigm of incentive microdialogue in modern English 1984, candidate of philological sciences Shevchenko, Natalia Alekseevna
Replies with implicit content of disagreement in the structure of the dialogical text 2003, candidate of philological sciences Penina, Tatyana Petrovna
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Germanic languages", Belokolotskaya, Svetlana Aleksandrovna
A rhetorical question in a dialogic unity can be used as a - * as a response or as an initiating replica DE.
The main pragmatic functions of the RE-response cue are the expressions of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect utterance. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement, i.e. expressed by a positive sentence or a negative sentence containing even number negators. Rhetoric is a negator entering into. interaction with a grammatical or lexical negator that is * present in the composition of the RE" and provides a positive indirect statement of the RE. Positive in form, the RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement, while rhetoric is a negator that provides a negative-indirect statement of the RE. Coincidence of information signs of the initiating and the reciprocal replica is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the reciprocal replica.
Positive in form RT "is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement, i.e. expressed by a positive sentence or a negative sentence containing an even number of negators. At the same time, rhetoric is a negator that provides a negative indirect utterance of RV. A rhetorical question, containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with the grammatical or lexical negator that is present in the RW "and provides a positive indirect statement of the RW. The discrepancy between the information signs of the initiating and response replicas is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica. The indirect utterance of the RE as part of the response replica can be equivalent to an implicit or explicit marker of disagreement, and can also be in the logical-semantic relationship of conjunction or implication with it. In the latter case, RW acts, as a rule, as an antecedent of the left-hand implicative structure.
RE in a response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of RT, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement.
Rhetorical, the question in response can take the form of a quotation question. The main meaning of quotation RTs, as well as most of the ^ RTs, is the value of agreement / disagreement with the initiating remark, depending on its form. In most cases, like standard RTs, cited RTs are in relation to an implication with an implicit or explicit agree/disagree marker and are the antecedent of the implication.
Among the rhetorical quotation questions, a number of constructions stand out - rhetorical clichés, acting as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement. Rhetorical cliché Why not? and Why should.? express agreement or disagreement depending on the form of the initiating replica and illustrate the patterns characteristic of complete RTs.
A rhetorical cliché that expresses disagreement with the initiating remark, regardless of its form, is a RE-cliché containing "How can (could).?
rhetorical cliches, accompanying meaning" which are agreement / disagreement, regardless of the form of the initiating remark, are the clichés Who cares?, Who knows? and their semantic variants (What do I care?, Why should I care?, What does that matter?, What difference does it make ?; How should I know?, etc.) The main meaning of these clichés is uncertainty, the interlocutor's reactions, and they implement the third pragmatic type of reactive remarks - avoidance of an answer.
Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such replies (as well as most of the reactive replicas) is the expression of agreement (full > or partial) or disagreement with the statement, realized by the indirect utterance of RV. Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.
In a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to the quesitive. In such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser differently. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication of the RW, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive, and reports information that refutes the content of the RW. In DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV becomes essential, i.e. there is a realization of the primary meaning of the indirect speech act.
A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such DUs are characterized as mismatched, since they have a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants due to the violation of the G.P. Relevance Postulate. Grice.
CONCLUSION
A rhetorical question in this work is understood as a figure of speech, consisting in giving an affirmation or denial of an interrogative form in order to create stylistic effect, attracting increased attention, increasing the emotional tone of the statement. Rhetoric is a stylistic and pragmatic function of a specific syntactic structure, the positivity and negativity of which are two sides of one phenomenon - a rhetorical question, which is characterized by an asymmetry in the affirmativeness of its formal and content characteristics. A positive RW "realizes a negative constative, while a negative RW is a form of realization of a positive constative. The presence of a statement in the form of a question and the asymmetry of the affirmativeness of the formal and meaningful characteristics of an interrogative sentence are recognized as the main signs of rhetoric. The absence of an informative answer to a RW is a characteristic, but not an obligatory sign of rhetoric .
A rhetorical question has all the syntactic forms of an interrogative sentence and all constructive structural forms. The most typical for RV are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word. RE in the form of other syntactic types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question) is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.
The rhetoric of context-dependent RW is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes. The context revealing the meaning of the RE can be limited to the minimum context1 in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the RE; spread over several SFU or cover the volume of the entire work. The rhetoric of RT, which contains intertext - allusions, references, etc., as well as acting as a precedent statement, i.e. quotes, manifests itself against the background of the deep, background context of the work.
The rhetoric of context-free RT is determined by the syntactic and semantic completeness of the sentence. A significant group of RTs, the rhetoric of which is free from context, are questions; containing universal truth - an indisputable fact based on the phenomena of reality, universal values, social structure and norms of behavior in society. The obviousness and indisputability of the judgment contained in the RW excludes the possibility of its functioning as a quesitive, since it makes the request for information redundant. The universal truths expressed by the RW are distinguished by the “volume of universality” and include judgments, the indisputability of which is explained both by the objective processes of the surrounding world and universal values, and based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker.
A special place among RT, the rhetoric of which does not depend on the context, is occupied by stable constructions (rhetorical clichés) - a group of interrogative sentences in the form that are often used in the meaning of RT, and therefore their quesitiveness is "erased".
The rhetorical question plays an essential role in the construction of the logical structure of the utterance, both in monologue and dialogic speech: an emphatic statement in the form of RV is, as a rule, an element of a causal or adversative relationship, a left-handed "or right-handed implication or anti-implication. B4 logical - the semantic structure of the utterance - RT plays the role of a cause (antecedent of implication), a consequence (consequent of implication) or a consequence "opposite to what is expected (anticosequent of anti-implication). The dominant position of RE in the composition of implicative SFU is the position of the consequent (consequence), which can be presented both in preposition and in postposition to the antecedent.
In monologue speech, a rhetorical question is used in any compositional speech form, however, it is most typical for reasoning both in the author's speech and in character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. the level of intensity (up to the twelfth degree - on the scale of intensity) RW implements in the author's reasoning - in a lyrical digression - and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality .
In storytelling, RW is used to create an atmosphere of tension, a more vivid description of events, convey the feelings and experiences of heroes, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration "in character speech. Bf objectified storytelling" RW is rare.
In the description, a rhetorical question serves as a means of expressing the author's attitude towards the described character (place) and is more typical for dynamic descriptions, which include > descriptions of the character, behavior, lifestyle, experiences of the character.
A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional-speech forms: narrative and reasoning or description and reasoning, where elements of reasoning containing the narrator's (character's) assessment of the events, people, etc. are presented as a rhetorical question. and reflecting the views of the author (narrator or character) regarding? one or another trait of character, deed, way of life of a character or thought inspired by the object of description.
The degree of intensification of the utterance presented by RW- in the narration and description varies from the first to the fourth scale of intensity.
The rhetorical question in dialogical unity is used as both a response and an initiating remark.
The main pragmatic functions of the RE-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The form of expression of agreement is affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expression of disagreement is affirmativeness, which coincides with the initiating remark. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect utterance. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. Positive in form RV * is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator, which is present in the composition of the RW*. The coincidence of signs-information of the initiating remark and the indirect utterance of the RE-response remark is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response remark.
Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or "grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement. The discrepancy between the signs of the information of the initiating replica and the RV-response replica is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica.
An indirect utterance of a RT as part of a response replica can be equivalent to an implicit or explicit marker of disagreement, and can also be in a logical-semantic relation of conjunction or implication with it. In the latter case, the RE acts, as a rule, as an antecedent of the left-hand implicative structure.
RE" in the response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of RE, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication1 to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement.
A rhetorical question in a response "remark can take the form of a quotation question. The main meaning of quotation RTs; like most RTs, is the value of agreement / disagreement with the initiating remark, depending on its form. Among rhetorical quotation questions, a number of constructions stand out - rhetorical clichés as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement, both depending on and regardless of the form of the initiating remark.The pragmatic meaning of a number of clichéd quotation questions as a response is the uncertainty of the interlocutor's reaction, which implements avoidance of the answer.
Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such response replicas (as well as the majority of reactive replicas) * is the expression of agreement (full or partial) or disagreement with the statement realized by the indirect statement RV: Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.
In "a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to a quesitive. In" such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser in different ways. Addressee who does not agree with the implication RV; intentionally interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content of the RE. In DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV becomes essential, i.e. there is a realization of the primary meaning of the indirect speech act.
A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such MUs are characterized as mismatched, since they are characterized by a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants.
Thus, the study is a comprehensive approach to the study of such a phenomenon as a rhetorical question. The results obtained in the course of the study reflect the structural, semantic, pragmatic features of a rhetorical question, the features of its functioning in a dialogical and monologue text and can contribute to further research in the field of a rhetorical question, for example, in social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling communicative processes (verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions of the subject, etc.). I
List of references for dissertation research candidate of philological sciences Belokolotskaya, Svetlana Alexandrovna, 2005
1. Akulenko V. V. Typology of adjectives of the Russian language, expressing the intensity of the attribute / V. V. Akulenko // Russian Linguistics. - Kyiv, 1978.-Vol. 14.-S. 82-89.
3. Andrievskaya A. M. Improperly direct speech in the artistic prose of Louis Aragon / A. M. Andrievskaya Kyiv, 1967. - 170 p.
4. Apresyan Yu. D. Principles of semantic description of language units / Yu. D. Apresyan // Semantics and knowledge representation. Tartu: Publishing House of the Tartu State University. un-ta, 1980. - Issue. 519. - S. 3-24.
5. Arnold I. V. Meaning strong position for interpretation artistic text/ I. V. Arnold // Foreign languages at school. - 1978. -№ 4. -S. 23-31.
6. Arnold I. V. Stylistics of the modern English language / I. V. Arnold. 2nd ed., revised. - M.: Enlightenment, 1981. - 295 p.
7. Arutyunova N. D. Dialogical citation (on the problem of someone else's speech) / N. D. Arutyunova // Questions of linguistics. - 1986. No. 1. - p. 50-64.
8. Arkhipova L.V. Rhetorical technique of auto-interpretation as a means of organizing discourse / on the material of English scientific prose: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / L. V. Arkhipova. St. Petersburg, 2002. - 23 p.
9. Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary linguistic terms/ O. S. Akhmanova. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966. - 608 p.
10. Bally S. French style / S. Bally. M.: Foreign Literature, 1961. - 394 p.
11. Babaitsev V.V. Russian language. Theory. / V. V. Babaitsev, L. D. Chesnokov. M.: Enlightenment, 1994. - 365 p.
12. Baranov A. N. Illocutionary compulsion in the structure of the dialogue / A. N. Baranov, G. E. Kreidlin // Questions of linguistics. 1992. - No. 2. - S. 84f -99.
13. Batalova I. K. Communicative, semantic-grammatical and stylistic organization of a coherent statement / I. K. Batalova // Structural and functional features of the sentence and text: - Sverdlovsk, 1989.-S. 19-31.
14. Bakhtin M. M. Word in the novel / M. M. Bakhtin // Questions of literature and aesthetics. M.: Fiction, 1975. - 502 p.
15. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity / M. M. Bakhtin. M., 1979. -423 s.t.
16. Berdnik L. F. Interrogative sentences with narrative f meaning in modern Russian: author. dis. . Candidate of Philology / L. F. Berdnik. Rostov-on-Don, 1974. - 23 p.
17. Berdnik L. F. Rhetorical question as an expressive means / L. F. Berdnik // Rhetoric and syntactic structures: theses reports and messages. -Krasnoyarsk, 1988: S. 4-7.
18. Bogdanov VV Classification of speech acts / VV Bogdanov // Interpersonal aspects of language communication. - Kalinin: Kalinin state. un-t, 1989.-p. 26-37.
19. Bogdanov VV Silence as a zero speech act and its role in verbal communication / VV Bogdanov // Language communication and its units. - Kalinin: Publishing House of the Kalinin State. un-ta, 1986. S. 12-18.
20. Bogdanov VV Semantic-syntactic organization of the sentence. / V. V. Bogdanov. L .: Publishing House of the Leningrad University, 1977. - 63 p.
21. Bogdanov VV Text and text communication / VV Bogdanov. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1993. 67 p.
22. Bondarenko VN Negation as a logical-grammatical category / V: N. Bondarenko. M.: Nauka, 1983. - 212 p.
23. Bondarko A. V. Fundamentals of functional grammar. Language interpretation of the idea of time / A. V. Bondarko. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1999.-260 p.
24. Brandes M. P. Stylistics German language: textbook for institutes and faculty. foreign lang. / M. P. Brandes. - M.: Higher School, 1983. - 271 p.
25. ByalousN. I. On the role of the end of the text in the process of text formation (based on the material short stories English and American writers) /
26. N. I. Byalous // Linguistic analysis of the text. Irkutsk, 1985. - S. 146-151.
27. Valyusinskaya 3. V. Issues of studying dialogue in the works of Soviet linguists / 3. V. Valyusinskaya // Text syntax. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 368 p.
28. Velik N. V. Rhetorical question in modern French spoken language/ N. V. Velik // Research in the field humanities. Eagle, 1993.-167 p.1. SCH)
29. Vendler 3. Illocutionary suicide / 3. Vendler // New in foreign linguistics: Issue. XVI. M.: Progress, 1986. - 238-250.
30. Zvegintsev V. A. Proposition and its relation to language and speech / V. A. Zvegintsev. M., 1976. - 213 p.
31. Vinogradov V. V. Improper direct speech and its varieties / / V. V. Vinogradov M., 1963. - 90 p.
32. Vinokur T. G. Characteristics of the structure of the dialogue in the evaluation f of a dramatic work / T. G. Vinokur // The language and style of the writer in the literary-critical analysis of a work of art. - t Kishinev, 1977. S. 64-72.
33. Vinokur T. G. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / T. G. Vinokur. -M., 1990.-S. 217.
34. Vlakhov S. Untranslatable in translation / S. Vlakhov, S. Florin. M.: Higher. school, 1986. - 416 p.
35. Wolf E. M. Functional semantics of evaluation / E. M. Wolf. M.: Nauka, 1985.-228s.f. 45. Vorobyov Yu.K. Rhetorical figures: workshop / Yu. K. Vorobyov. -Saransk: Publishing House of the Mordovian University, 1993. 98 pp.
Please note the above scientific texts posted for review and obtained through recognition of original texts of dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
In this article, we will talk about questions. The construction of an English question differs from Russian if only in that in Russian we ask questions with intonation, and in English, in addition to intonation, there is also a certain word order. Plus, the questions are divided into different types. So, in order. The most common question looks like this:
(Interrogative word) + auxiliary verb + subject + semantic verb + ...?
Thus, when constructing the question:
- need an auxiliary verb to be, to do, to have;
- inversion (indirect word order) is needed - i.e. the subjects and part of the predicate (auxiliary verb) change places: auxiliary verb + subject + semantic verb
You like ice cream. – Do you like ice-cream?
You are okay. – Are you okay?
You have got a sister. Have you got a sister?
!!! Important: only an auxiliary verb can appear before the subject
Where did you go yesterday? not Where did you go yesterday? - modal verbs independently form an interrogative sentence, while again there is an indirect word order, where the subject changes with the predicate
Can I talk to you for a second? - prepositions in wh-questions are placed at the end of the sentence.
What were you talking about? - What were you talking about?
Which hotel are you staying in? - What hotel did you stay in?
Questions are of the following types:
- Yes/no questions(yes/no questions), i.e. to which you can simply answer yes or no:
Will you go out with me? Yes, I will.
Can I open the window? No, you can't. - wh-questions, i.e. questions requiring an answer Additional information. They are asked with question words. who, which, what, whose, when, why, where, whom, how, how much, how many. These interrogative words can become "zero place", i.e. before an auxiliary (modal) verb.
How can I help you?
What are you doing here?
Where have you been? - Questions to the subject beginning with question words who, which, what. In such questions, the auxiliary verb is not needed. Let's look at examples:
Who phoned? - Who called, who (who) is the subject, there is no auxiliary verb.
Who did you phone? - Who did you call?, here who is not the subject, and there is an auxiliary verb. - indirect question. In such sentences, the question is part of the statement, respectively, inversion does not occur, the direct word order remains and the question mark is not put at the end, for example:
Tell me where you bought these wonderful shoes. - Rhetorical questions- questions that do not require an answer.
Who's a lovely baby = You're a lovely baby - negative questions, i.e. when the auxiliary verb comes with a particle not. Such questions are either not answered or answered with consent.
Didn't I tell you about it? Yes, you did. “Didn't I tell you about this? Yes, he did. - Question tags or return questions that the questioner asks to clarify information that he already knows and has little doubt.
I have told you about it, haven't I?
Return questions are constructed in such a way that a tag is added to the affirmative (negative) sentence, which is often translated into Russian as “isn't it?”, “Isn't it?”. This tag will be in the same tense as the main clause and will be either negative if the sentence is affirmative or affirmative if the sentence is negative.
You like ice cream, don't you?
You don't like ice-cream, do you?
You used to have a bike, didn't you?
You didn't use to have a bike, did you?
More details about the construction of a question in each grammatical tense can be found in the articles devoted to these tenses. Stay tuned, we'll talk more about tag-questions in the near future.
As a manuscript
Belokolotskaya Svetlana Alexandrovna
RHETORICAL QUESTION IN ENGLISH Specialty 10.02.04 - Germanic languages
Voronezh - 2005
The work was done at Tula State University
scientific adviser
Official Opponents
Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor Chikurova Maria Fedorovna
Doctor of Philology, Professor
Sternina Marina Abramovna
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor
Antonova Lyudmila Anatolievna
Lead organization
Tula State Pedagogical University
The defense will take place on November 14, 2005 at 2 pm at a meeting of the Dissertation Council D 212 038.16 at Voronezh State University at 394006, Voronezh, Lenin Square, 10, room 14
The dissertation can be found at scientific library Voronezh State University.
Scientific Secretary _
Dissertation Council Vella T M
general description of work
The abstract of the dissertation is devoted to the description of the structural and semantic features of rhetorical questions (QQ) in English, their stylistic function of intensifying the utterance and functions in monologue and dialogic text structures.
The rhetorical question is a phenomenon that is widespread in speech, which is why it has attracted and still attracts the attention of researchers. Over the past decades, attempts to define the rhetorical question and describe the features of its functioning have been carried out in a number of works by leading Russian and foreign researchers [Zhinkin 1955, Skrebnev 1975, Galperin 1977; Bloch 1983; Chkhetiani 1987; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Quirk et al 1982, 1994; Weinrich 1993 and others] A number of dissertation and other scientific studies are devoted to the problem of non-interrogative use of interrogative sentences, including rhetorical questions [Berdnik 1974; Skrebnev 1975; Bloch 1983, Ostroukhova 1983, Konrad 1985; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992; Sergeeva 1993, Fedorova 1996; Kotovskaya 1999 and others]
However, such a problem as the development of the generally accepted concept of “rhetorical question” has not yet been solved, there is no single approach to identifying the fundamental features of rhetoric, there is no systematic description of the structural, semantic and pragmatic features of the rhetorical question; there are no works that would study the functions of a rhetorical question, its role in the logical-semantic structure of superphrasal unity and in the system of means of expressing the category of intensity
The relevance of the study is due to the prevalence of rhetorical questions in speech and the lack of a systematic description of their structural, semantic, stylistic features, their functions as an utterance intensifier in monologue / dialogic speech, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of parts of dialogic unity, and the place in the logical-semantic structure of superphrasal unity.
The object of the study is the rhetorical question as an intensifier of the statement, its structural and stylistic features, contextual conditionality, role in dialogic and monologue text structures.
The theoretical basis of the study is the achievements of domestic and foreign linguistics in the field of text linguistics [Dyck 1976; Galperin 1981, Moskalskaya 1981; Goncharova 1983, Kukharenko 1988, Bogdanov 1993, Paducheva 1996; Gak 2000 and others], pragmatists [Serl 1986; Austin 1986;
GG Pocheptsov 1971, 1981 Qtob 1980, 1983,
LIBRARY 1 S. Petersburg
E YuoOmt ft Jt
1986 G Pocheptsov 1986, Semenenko 1996, Makarov 1998 and others]. cognitive linguistics [Dyck 1989; Paducheva 1996 and others], stylistics [Galperin 1971, Arnold 1981, Skrebnev 1975, 1983, Turansky 1990, 1991 and others]
The purpose of the study is to implement a comprehensive, integral approach to the study of such a complex phenomenon as a rhetorical question
The set goal is subject to the solution of the following research tasks
1) identify the structural and syntactic features of a rhetorical question, \
2) analyze the conditions for the dependence of a rhetorical question on the context,
3) to determine the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of super-phrasal unity (SPU),
4) describe the functions of a rhetorical question in monologue speech (author's / character, external / internal), determine the level of intensity of the utterance presented by the RW,
5) describe the ratio of affirmative characteristics of RT and initiating / response replicas in dialogic unity (DE)
The scientific novelty of the dissertation lies in the fact that for the first time an attempt was made in it for an integrated approach to the study of a rhetorical question - a systematic description of its structural-syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic features, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of the parts of the dialogue! logical unity, in which RW acts as an initiating or reciprocal cue, its role as an intensifier in monologue superphrasal unities is determined, the place of RW in the logical-semantic structure of the text is determined, the contextual conditionality of rhetorical questions is analyzed, the dependence / independence of RW from the context is described.
The paper gives a definition of a rhetorical question, which reflects the linguistic nature of the phenomenon under study, describes the signs of rhetoric.
The theoretical significance of the work is. in the fact that it determines the place of a rhetorical question in the system of means of expressing the semantic category of intensity in the English language, describes the role of RW in the logical-semantic structure of monologue and dialogic SPU, The mechanism of interaction between the affirmativeness of RW and the affirmativeness of the reacting / initiating replica in DE is revealed; the structural-semantic types of rhetorical questions are described, the conditions for dependence / independence of RW from the context are determined. The results obtained may contribute to further research in the field of rhetorical question, for example, in social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper
theoretical development of modeling communicative processes (verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions of the subject, etc.)
The practical value of the work is determined by the possibility of using the results of the research in lecture courses and seminars on general linguistics, theoretical grammar, English stylistics, special courses on text linguistics and oral speech practice, as well as in compiling textbooks, supervising term papers and theses
The solution of the formulated tasks was carried out by applying a complex research methodology. The main method of analysis is the transformation method. The procedure for identifying an indirect statement of a rhetorical question is the transformation of an interrogative structure into an affirmative one (positive or negative in form).
(1) Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw) -> I should not waste your time in discussing what is inevitable
(2) Isn "t the answer obvious? (Sheldon) -> The answer is obvious.
The work also used such methods of analysis as contextual-semantic, statistical, the method of logical-semantic analysis
The research material included about 5,000 examples obtained from the works of English and American authors, including fiction and journalistic texts, as well as the material of the Dictionary of Quotations (The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations)
1 A rhetorical question is an intensifier, the degree of intensity of which increases with an increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition
2 A rhetorical question has all syntactic and all structural forms of an interrogative sentence
3 A rhetorical question in monologue unity is used mainly in reasoning or is an element of reasoning as part of other compositional speech forms, participating in the formation of a logical-semantic implication or anti-implication, expressing a cause, effect or effect opposite to the expected one. The intensity of a rhetorical question in reasoning can reach the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity
4 A rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both an initiating and a response remark. In the role of a response remark, a rhetorical question expresses both agreement and disagreement with the initiating
replica The form of expressing consent is affirmative, which does not coincide with the initiating replica, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmative, coinciding with the initiating replica
5 A rhetorical question is an amalgamated speech act and is introduced in the text by speaking verbs (to say, to tell, etc.) RV form is the possibility of answering, it Interrogative as the meaning of the form is an intensifier of the statement and the third sign of the importance of the direct meaning of the indirect speech act
6 The rhetoric of a greater number of rhetorical questions is free from context, since it is determined by the syntactic structure of the RW and its internal semantics. The rhetoric of context-dependent rhetorical questions is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes, including the volume of the entire work, which is typical for a rhetorical question in strong positions of the text
Approbation of the work was carried out at scientific conferences of teachers of the Department of Lithuanian and Translation of the Tula State University (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). at the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Languages and the Picture of the World" (Tula State University, 2002); at scientific and methodological seminars of graduate students Based on the research materials, seven scientific articles were published.
The main goal and objectives of the study determine the structure of the dissertation work, which consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of scientific and fiction literature, as well as a list of dictionaries.
The introduction substantiates the relevance of the dissertation work, defines the goals and objectives of the study, as well as the material, methods and techniques of research, describes the procedure for identifying the indirect meaning of a rhetorical question (PQ), clarifies the structure of the dissertation, formulates the provisions submitted for defense
In the first chapter "The rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature and in the system of expressing the category of intensity" theoretical aspect research problem
The dissertation adopted a well-established point of view in English on a rhetorical question, according to which it is defined as a figure of speech, consisting in giving an affirmation or denial of an interrogative form in order to create a stylistic effect, attract increased attention,
raising the emotional drive of the utterance Rhetoric is a stylistic and pragmatic function of a specific syntactic structure, the positive and negative of which are two sides of one phenomenon - a rhetorical question, which is characterized by an asymmetry in the affirmativeness of its formal and content characteristics. affirmative constative The presence of a statement in the form of a question and the asymmetry of the affirmativeness of the formal and meaningful characteristics of an interrogative sentence are recognized as the main signs of rhetoric.
A rhetorical question, which is an emphatic statement, is an effective means of expressing the category of intensity - a semantic category, which is based on the concept of gradation of quantity, due to which it is a quantitative measure of quality assessment, a measure of the amount of expressiveness, emotionality, evaluativeness, signaling the gradualness of the intensification of the statement.
A rhetorical question is an intensifier that can include other intensifiers in its composition. The degree of intensity of an utterance, expressed by RP, increases with an increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition. RP, which does not contain additional intensifiers, implements the first degree of intensification of the utterance, while the interrogative form acts as an intensifier of the first degree . The presence of an intensifier of any level in the RE increases the degree of intensification of the utterance presented by the RE by one step on the intensity scale. The general degree of intensification of an utterance, expressed by RE, is determined by adding the intensifiers that make up its composition, including the intensification created by the emphatic form of the RE itself.
The second chapter "The rhetorical question, its structural-syntactic features and contextual conditionality" considers the structural-semantic features of the RW and its contextual conditionality.
A rhetorical question has all the syntactic forms of an interrogative sentence and all constructive structural forms. The most characteristic forms for RW are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word RW in the form of other syntax types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question) is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.
The rhetoric of RT can be both contextually conditioned and context-free Rhetoric, free from context, is determined by the syntactic structure of RT and (or) its internal semantics. A significant group of RTs, whose rhetoric is free of context,
constitute RV containing a universal truth, about which there is and cannot be any doubt, which reduces the questioning of such a question to a minimum. social norms and rules of behavior in society, as well as judgments based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker and realizing the category "my personal world"
Example (1) consists of two REs that contain the most objective universal truth regarding the objective reality, physical phenomena that exist independently of the will, desire and worldview of a person:
(1) Can storyed urn or animated bust
Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath? Can honor "s voice provoke the silent dust, Or flattery soothe the dull cold car of death"" (Gray) -> Storied urn or animated bust cannot back to its mansion call the fleeting breath Honors voice cannot provoke the silent dust, or flattery cannot soothe the dull cold ear of death.
In example (2), RT contains a universal truth that reflects a person’s ideas about the structure and laws of the world around him, a person’s observations of the course of life. The subjectivity of such statements is expressed in the fact that they are given through the prism of a person’s perception of life; their objectivity is expressed in the fact that the stated judgment is a global observation of humanity, and not an expression of the personal position of the speaker
Most often, RVs express universal truths based on common Chechen values "human relationships, attitudes towards life and death, love and hate, wisdom, etc.; they are obvious and undeniable
(3) Can two walk together, cxcept they be agreed1? (The Bible) -» Two cannot walk together, except they be agreed
Often, RWs express philosophical reasoning, containing an attempt to comprehend what is happening around, to find the meaning of life, they combine the general human laws of being and the subjective position of the speaker.
(4) Canst thou by searching find God7 (The Bible) -> Thou cannot by searching find God
The universal truth represented by RT may be a judgment based on the norms, values, social attitudes and laws of a particular community. Such statements are more subjective and may not
be indisputable to a member of another community"
(5) Who dies if England live9 (Kipling) -< No one dies if England live
PB (5) contains the truth, the indisputability of which is determined by the patriotic feelings of the British This conviction may not be shared by residents of other states
The universal truth in example (6) is based on the features of the social structure post-industrial society and the rules of consumer relations existing in it:
(6) If your electricity goes out, do you call the gas company7 If your tires blow, do you blame the car maker? (Chnchton). -»If your electricity goes out, you do not call the gas company If your tires blow, you do not blame the car maker.
The indisputability of such judgments for all members of a particular community elevates them to the rank of universal truths within that community.
REs may contain propositions that the speaker presents as universal truth; they are the most subjective, since they express exclusively the author's position based on his individual worldview. They may not coincide with the views of the reader (listener), and sometimes conflict with social norms or universal ideas about the laws of the surrounding reality.
(7) What hath night to do with sleep? (Milton) -» Night has nothing to do with sleep
The rhetoric of PB is free from context even if RV is a widespread, informationally complete, autosemantic utterance. The rhetoric of such RT is based on the completeness of the information structure containing the argumentation of the implied RT statement:
(8) But I didn't worry about him any more, because who was going to believe him? (Hemingway) -> But I didn't worry about him any more, because no one was going to believe him.
The rhetoric of context-dependent PBs can be revealed against a background of context of various sizes. The context that reveals the meaning of PB can be limited to the framework of the minimum context in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the PB:
(9) Who could attempt to pursue him9 It was impossible (M Shelly)
In example (9), the sentence following the RW argues for the statement implied by the RW (No one could attempt to pursue him) and serves as a confirmation of its rhetoric. The context necessary to reveal the rhetoric of the question can extend to several SPUs or cover the volume of the entire work (RW in strong positions of the text ) The rhetoric of RV,
The third chapter "The rhetorical question in monologue unity" considers the functioning of RW as an intensifier of monologue (author's and character) speech, determines the degree of intensification of the statement represented by the rhetorical question, describes the use of RW in the compositional speech forms of the text, determines the place of the rhetorical question in the logical and semantic structure of monological superphrasal unity
In monologue speech, a rhetorical question occurs in any compositional speech form, however, it is most typical for reasoning, both in authorial and character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. (up to the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity) RE is realized in the author's reasoning, where it is part of a lyrical digression and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality
Example (10) is the author's lyrical digression in a strong position of the SFU (10) completes T Dreiser's novel "Sister Carry" ("Sister Carry") and contains the author's conclusion - the moral of the work "(10) If honest labor be unremunerative and difficult to endure ; if it be the long, long road which never reachcs beauty, but wearies the feet and the heart, if the drag to follow beauty be such that one abandons the admired way, taking rather the despised path leading to her dreams quickly, who shall cast the first stone9 Not evil, but longing for that which is better, more often directs the steps of the erring Not evil, but goodness more often allures the feeling mind unused to reason (Dreiser)
The author justifies the life choice of the heroine, who chose the shortest and, from the point of view of social and religious morality, dishonorable path to success and wealth. An essential place in the emphatic presentation of the author's position is occupied by RV, the emphaticity of which is enhanced by a combination of lexical and syntactic means of intensification with biblical allusion (who shall cast the first stone), using the subjunctive mood characteristic of the high style (if it be), gradation based on parallel constructions with triple anaphoric repetition (If honest labor ., if it be , if the drag), two expanded metaphors ( if it be the long, long road which never reaches beauty, if the drag to follow beauty be such that one abandons the admired way, taking rather the despised path leading to her dreams quickly), epithets (despised path, admired way), zeugma (wearies the feet and the
heart), the repetition of the evaluative adjective (long), as well as the strong position of digression in the novel
A rhetorical question plays an essential role in building the logical structure of a monologue-reasoning. An emphatic statement in the form of RV is an element of a causal relationship, a left-handed or right-handed implication. positions of monologic supra-phrasal unity, RW sums up the arguments that make up this SFU, and is a consequence - consequent of the implication. As the material of the study shows, the dominant position of RE in the composition of implicative SFU is the position of the consequent (consequence), which can be presented both in preposition and in postposition to the antecedent.
Another essential function of RE in the logical structure of a monologue-reasoning is the function of the anti-consequent (consequence opposite to the expected one) in the opposite anti-implicative structure characteristic of reasoning. Determining the presence of a marker or substituting it is a procedure for identifying the SFU of the corresponding logical-semantic type.
Thus, in example (10), the RW contains a conclusion from the argument - the consequent of the implication, followed by its justification (the antecedent of the implication) in the form of two sentences-conjuncts
If honest labor be unremunerative and difficult to endure; if it be the long, long road which never reaches beauty, but wearies the feet and the heart, if the drag to follow beauty be such that one abandons the admired way, taking rather the despised path leading to her dreams quickly, no one shall cast the first stone, (for) Not evil, but longing for that which is better, more often directs the steps of the erring (and) Not evil, but goodness more often allures the feeling mind unused to reason
In narration, RS is used to create an atmosphere of tension, to describe events more vividly, to convey the feelings and experiences of heroes, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration in character speech. In objectified narration, RS is rare. (11) All the boys clapped hands in token of applause and sympathy His blushes, his stumbles, his awkwardness, and the number of feet which he crushed as he went back to his place, who shall describe or calculate9 Old Dobbin, his father, who now respected him for the first time, gave him two guineas publicly, most of which he spent in a general tuckout for the school, and he came back in a tail-coat after the holidays (Thackeray)
RE in example (11) serves as a means of conveying the emotional state of a student lagging behind in a number of subjects, who receives an award for success in mathematics The solemnity of the situation, the applause of classmates and the presence of the father embarrass the character
1) form PB;
2) preposition of secondary members of the sentence (homogeneous additions),
3) a synonymic series (His blushes, his stumbles, his awkwardness, and the number of feet he crushed);
4) anaphoric repetition of the personal pronoun (his)
The RE in example (11) has the fifth degree of intensity and is part of the structure of a sequential right-hand implication, being the consequent of the previous and the antecedent of the subsequent statement: All the boys clapped hands in token of applause and sympathy (so) No one shall describe or calculate his blushes, his stumbles, his awkwardness, and the number of feet which he crashed as he went back to his place (so) Old Dobbin, his father, who now respected him for the first time, gave him two guineas publicly; most of which he spent in a general tuckout for the school, and he came back in a tail-coat after the holidays.
In the description, the rhetorical question serves as a means of expressing the author's attitude to the described character (place) and is more typical for dynamic descriptions, which include descriptions of the character, behavior, lifestyle, experiences of the character. Example (12) contains a dynamic portrait of the heroine, presented through a description of the attitude of others around her.
(12) But it just happened that none of the men she knew had ever wanted to marry her And why should they want to7 When she came into a room the light seemed to grow perceptibly dimmer, the electrical tension slackened off (Huxley) -* But it just happened that none of the men she knew had ever wanted to marry her And there is no reason why they should want to (for) When she came into a room the light seemed to grow perceptibly dimmer, the electrical tension slackened off
The RE in example (12) is an elliptic sentence and is a structure of the second degree of intensity:
1) RV form,
2) stylistically colored syntactic structure (ellipsis)
A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional and speech forms of narration and reasoning or description and reasoning, where the rhetorical question presents elements of reasoning containing an assessment by the narrator (character) of the events, people, etc.
The degree of intensification of the utterance, represented by RW in narration and description, varies from the first to the fourth on the scale of intensity.
In the fourth chapter "The rhetorical question in dialogic unity"
the ratio of the affirmative characteristics of the RW and the affirmative characteristics of the initiating or reciprocal remark of the dialogical unity interacting with it is presented.
A rhetorical question can act as both a response and an initiating remark DE
The main pragmatic functions of the RW-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. , usually as an antecedent of a left-handed implicative structure
In this work, consent is understood as a positive reaction of the interlocutor to the content of the initiating remark, consisting in an affirmative answer to the question, consent to perform a certain action, a positive assessment of the intentions or views of the interlocutor, etc. The procedure for identifying the pragmatic function of consent is the possibility of substituting the consent marker (Yes) -or its equivalents (of course, sure, etc.) without changing the semantic structure of the dialogic unity.
The form of expression of agreement is affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of disagreement is affirmativeness, which coincides with the initiating remark is a positive statement Positive in form RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator present in the RE replicas
(13) "Is it true, Pilar9" he asked me "When did I lie to you7" I told him (Hemingway).
PB (13) contains one lexical negator (the verb of negative semantics to lie, the negative information of the root morpheme of which is fixed in the dictionary definition containing the negation marker to lie -to give an untrue statement ) The indirect statement PB (13) is a positive constative formed as a result of interaction of two negators - lexical and grammatical - as part of the indirect utterance РВ-1 never lied to you
The implicit Yes and the indirect statement PB (13) are connected by cause-and-effect relationships; when explicating the indirect statement of the response, the substitution of the implication marker is possible because1 Yes, it is, because I never lied to you
Positive in form PB is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement -
(14) Carla You didn't like her7
Philip- Could you expect me to7 (Christie).
PB (14) does not contain means of expressing negation and implies a negative statement (You couldn't expect mc to), which is an affirmative answer to the question contained in the initiating remark. Implicit consent in this case contains the marker No and is in relation to the conjunction with the indirect statement РВ (14) No, I didn't and you couldn't expect me to.
Disagreement in this work is understood as a negative reaction of the interlocutor to the content of the initiating remark, consisting in a negative answer to the question, objection, protest, refusal to perform a certain action, negative assessment of the intentions or views of the interlocutor, etc. The procedure for identifying the pragmatic meaning of disagreement is the possibility of substituting a disagreement marker (No and its semantic equivalents) in response without violating the semantic structure of the DU.
Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a positive e
saying:
(15) "Or is it that you"re afraid we"ll steal your secrets?" "What secrets can a beginning carver have?" (Stone)
The indirect statement PB (15) (A beginning carver has no secrets) is a negative constative in form - an antecedent of an implicative structure, the consequent of which contains the implicit negation marker No and a negative answer to the one presented in the initiating
replica part alternative question No, I am not afraid you "ll steal my secrets, because a beginning carver has no secrets
A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a negative statement. The discrepancy between the information signs of the initiating remark and the RT-response remark is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response remark -
(16) Mary Promise me, dear, you won "t believe I made you an excuse Edmund What else can I believe9 (O" Neill)
PB (16) contains the lexical negator else, the negative semantics of which is confirmed by a two-stage definitional analysis, else-other , other - not the same Indirect statement PB (16) is a positive statement represented by a negative sentence with a double negation There's nothing else I can believe , which is the antecedent of an implicative structure, the consequent of which is an implicit refusal expressed by a complex sentence with two negators No, I won "t promise I won" t believe you made me an excuse, because there "s nothing else I can believe
PB in the response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of PB, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement:
The procedure for identifying partial agreement / disagreement is the possibility of substituting its marker (Yes, but, No, but) or their semantic equivalents without changing the semantic structure of the DU
(17) Lady: The early bird catches the worm Jabe: That's right. Where's the worm? (Williams).
In example (17), the response replica consists of an affirmative sentence expressing agreement with the statement of the interlocutor and RE, implying disagreement with it. which the indirect statement RV implements the anti-consequent of the anti-implication - That "s right but there" s no worm
Acting as an initiating replica of the DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive retort directly related to its content.
realizable indirect statement RV Such DUs are
homogeneous constative DU, consisting of two constatives
(18) Roilander You would turn down any financial offer I made you. But can you
afford to turn down a chance of your wife recovering her health1"
Karl You're quite right (Cristie)
The response cue in DU (18) is a colloquial formula of agreement. The explication of the indirect utterance RV (18) brings to the surface the constativity of the initiating cue and the entire DU.
(18) Roilander You would turn down any financial offer 1 made you. But you can not afford to turn down a chance of your wife recovering her health.
Karl. You're quite right
In a number of DUs, the response response is a reaction to a quesitive. In such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser in different ways. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication RV, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content. RV IN DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV acquires significant significance, here there is a realization of the primary meaning of an indirect speech act -
(19) "I carried out my orders. I sent in all of my boys But the Germans are ahead of us. They have artillery, tanks and me? What did I have7"
"Secret duty to resist" (Kirkland).
In DE (19), the response in form and content is a response to the quesitive, but the context indicates the rhetoric of the question-initiating remark. RV (19) belong! to a military commander who explains to the commander the reason for another defeat during World War II. The indirect statement of the initiating remark is the negative constant I did not have anything (either artillery, or tanks). The context indicating the absence of an information gap in the addressee and, therefore, confirming the rhetoric of the question is the information preceding the RV (19), as well as background knowledge about the plight of the Red Army in the first years of the war. About the rhetorical! and the question is also indicated by the pronoun of the 1st person singular as part of the question The response in DE (19) is an ellipsis of the affirmative sentence You had a secret duty to resist and expresses an opinion different from the statement implied by the RV "I did not have anything" "Yes, you did. You had a secret duty to resist"
A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such DUs are characterized as
mismatched, because in them there is a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants
(20) Elizabeth Isn "t it fun being in love with someone who" s in love with you9 Teddie I say, G think I "d better clear out at once, don" t you7 (Maugham)
The reactive remark in DE (20) is not related to the content of the RE, but is a formal response of the interlocutor to the statement, i.e. taking a speech course and signals the end of the conversation
In conclusion, the results of the study are formulated,
overall result of the work
The results of the study give grounds for the following conclusions.
1. A rhetorical question has all syntactic and all structural forms of an interrogative sentence. The most typical for RV are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word. RE, having the form of other syntactic types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question), is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.
2 The rhetoric of context-dependent RW is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes. The context that reveals the meaning of the RE can be limited to the minimum context in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the RE; the context may extend to several SFU or cover the scope of the entire work. The rhetoric of RW, which contains intertext - allusions, references, etc., and also acts as a precedent statement, i.e., quotation, is manifested against the background of the deep, background context of the work.
The rhetoric of context-free REs is determined by the syntactic and semantic completeness of the sentence. A significant group of RT, the rhetoric of which is free from the context, consists of questions containing universal truth - an indisputable fact based on the phenomena of reality, universal values, social structure and norms of behavior in society. The obviousness and indisputability of the judgment contained in the RW excludes the possibility of its functioning as a quesitive, since it makes the request for information redundant. The universal truths expressed by the RW are distinguished by the “volume of universality” and include judgments, the indisputability of which is explained both by the objective processes of the surrounding world and universal values, and based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker.
3 The rhetorical question plays an essential role in the construction of the logical structure of the utterance, both in monologue and dialogic speech. An emphatic statement in the form of RV is, as a rule, an element of a causal or adversative relationship, left-handed or right-handed implication or anti-implication. In the logical-semantic structure of the utterance, the RS plays the role of a cause (antecedent of implication), a consequence (consequent of an implication) or a consequence opposite to the expected one (anti-consequent of anti-implication). , and in postposition to the antecedent
4 In monologue speech, a rhetorical question is used in any compositional speech form, however, it is most characteristic of the day of reasoning both in authorial and character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. (up to the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity) RW realizes in the author's reasoning - in a lyrical digression - and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality
In narration, RE is used to create an atmosphere of tension, to describe events more vividly, to convey the feelings and experiences of characters, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration in character speech. In objectified narration, RE is rare.
In the description, the rhetorical question serves as a means of expressing the author's attitude to the described character (place) and is more typical for dynamic descriptions, which include descriptions of the character, behavior, lifestyle, experiences of the character
A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional speech forms - narrative and reasoning or description and reasoning, where a rhetorical question presents elements of reasoning containing an assessment by the narrator (character) of the events, people, etc., and reflecting the views of the author ( narrator or character) regarding a particular character trait, deed, character's lifestyle or thoughts inspired by the object of description
The degree of intensification of the utterance represented by the RW in the narrative and description varies from the first to the fourth on the scale of intensity.
5 The rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both a response and an initiating remark.
The main pragmatic functions of the RT-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The form of expressing consent is affirmative, which does not coincide with the initiating cue, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmative, coinciding with the initiating cue. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect statement. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator that is part of RE. The coincidence of the information signs of the initiating replica and the indirect utterance of the RE-response replica is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the reciprocal response.
A positive RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a positive statement A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement Mismatch between the information signs of the initiating replica and the RE-response replica is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning response remark
RE in a response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of the RW, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing consent.
6. Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question may be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such replies (as well as the majority of reactive replicas) is the expression of agreement (full or partial) or disagreement with the statement, realized by the indirect statement of the RW. Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.
In a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to the quesitive. In some DUs characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser differently. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication of the RW, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content of the RW. In a DE of this kind
the interrogative form of RV becomes essential, i.e., there is a realization of the primary meaning of an indirect speech act
A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT. by changing the topic of conversation or ending it. Such MUs are characterized as mismatched, since they are characterized by a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants.
The main provisions of the dissertation are reflected in the following publications:
1 Belokolotskaya S.A. Syntactic structure of a rhetorical question in English / S.A. Belokolotskaya, M.F. Chikurova // Proceedings of the Tula State University. Series: Philological Sciences. - Tula, 1999. - Issue. 1,-C. 93-96.
2. Belokolotskaya SA Rhetorical question as a component of dialogic citation / SA Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University Series: Philological Sciences. - Tula, 2000. - Issue. 2. - S. 30-32.
3 Belokolotskaya S.A. Interrogative sentences as pragmatic clichés in the structure of metacommunicative communication / SA Belokolotskaya // Languages and the picture of the world "mat. All-Russian scientific conference - Tula: Publishing house of TulGU, 2002.-p. 14-17.
4 Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical question on the scale of intensity / S.A. Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University Series-Philological Sciences. - Tula, 2003 - Issue 3 - S. 19-27.
5 Belokolotskaya SA A rhetorical question as a means of characterizing a linguistic personality / SA Belokolotskaya // Linguistic personality as a subject of theoretical and applied linguistics: mater Vserossiysk. scientific conf. -Tula: Publishing House of TulGU, 2004. - S. 24-29.
6. Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical question in monologue author's speech / SA Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University Series: Philological Sciences. - Tula, 2004. - Issue. 4 - C 39-45.
7. Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical question as an initiating remark of dialogical unity / S.A. Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University. Series: Philological Sciences - Tula, 2004. -
Issue 4.-S. 45-51.
I. I 1Mn L1>K 020100 dated 12 02 97 Iolshayu in not chip 26 04 t Format6\s<1ги 60x84 Ьчмага гфсстшя
1 \ 1y.kky goolar^tiekny \ inverekget 300600 | T \ 1v nrosn Chsnii I 92
(LISCHvTENO N I 1 it<. [ЬСГЖ I V (1 N ШЮ г 1>1M \m pit IG
CHAPTER 1. A RHETORICAL QUESTION IN MODERN
LINGUISTIC LITERATURE AND IN THE SYSTEM OF EXPRESSION OF THE INTENSITY CATEGORY.
1.1. Rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature.
CHAPTER 2
2.1. Rhetorical question, its syntactic features and structural forms.
2.1.1 Syntactic types of a rhetorical question.
2.1.2 Structural forms of a rhetorical question.
2.2. Contextual conditionality of a rhetorical question. f 2.2.1. A rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which does not depend on the context.
2.2.2. A rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which depends on the context.
CHAPTER 3. RHETORICAL QUESTION IN MONOLOGICAL UNITY.
3.2. A rhetorical question in the character's reasoning.
F 3.3. Rhetorical question in the narrative.
3.4. Rhetorical question in the description.
CHAPTER 4. RHETORICAL QUESTION IN DIALOGICAL F UNITY.
4.1. A rhetorical question as a response.
4.1.1. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing agreement.
4.1.2. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing disagreement.
4.1.3. A rhetorical question in a response as a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement.
4.1.4. A rhetorical question is a component of a dialogical quotation in a response as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement.
4.2. Rhetorical question as an initiating remark.
4.2.1. Rhetorical question in constative dialogical unities.
4.2.2. Rhetorical question in constative-quesitive dialogic unities. f 4.2.3. A rhetorical question in discordant dialogic unities. Conclusions.
Dissertation Introduction 2005, abstract on philology, Belokolotskaya, Svetlana Aleksandrovna
The present work is devoted to the description of the structural and semantic features of rhetorical questions (QQs) in English, their stylistic function of utterance intensification and their function in monologic and dialogic text structures.
The rhetorical question is a phenomenon that is widespread in speech, which is why it has attracted and still attracts the attention of researchers. Over the past decades, attempts to define a rhetorical question and describe the features of its functioning have been carried out in a number of works by leading Russian and foreign researchers [Zhinkin 1955; Skrebnev 1975; Galperin 1977; Bloch 1983; Weinrich 1983, 1993; Chkhetiani 1987; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1982, 1994 and others].
The problem of non-interrogative use of interrogative sentences, including rhetorical questions, is the subject of a number of dissertations and other scientific studies [Bloch 1983; Skrebnev 1983; Ostroukhova 1983; Konrad 1985; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992; Sergeeva 1993; Fedorova, 1996; Kotovskaya 1999 and others]
However, in the existing interpretations of the rhetorical question, a number of contradictions can be traced. In some works, a rhetorical question is called an expressively colored negation [Russian Grammar 1980: 395], in others it is an affirmative message or motivation [Velik 1993: 138], in others it is a hidden affirmation or negation [Zhinkin 1955; Akhmanova 1966; Skrebnev 1975; Berdnik 1988; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Khaikova 1999; Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1994]. The term "rhetorical question" itself is often replaced by the terms "pseudo-interrogative sentence", "non-interrogatively used interrogative sentence", expressive-stating interrogative sentence, "false question", false question, "imaginary question", "pseudo question" [Bally 1961: 308 ; Restan 1972; Dolinin 1978; Chkhetiani 1987; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992].
In * different studies, certain aspects of interrogative sentences are touched upon, which can be interpreted as rhetorical questions. So, in the work of JI.A. Ostroukhova. only non-pronominal interrogative sentences are considered, functioning as a reactive cue. Research by S.S. Kotovskaya is devoted to the role of prosody in the differentiation of the German rhetorical question1. T. A. Sergeeva considers rhetorical! question in> German dialogical speech.
Thus, such a problem as the development of the generally accepted concept of "rhetorical question" has not yet found its solution, there is no single approach to identifying the fundamental features of rhetoric, there is no systematic description of the structural, semantic and pragmatic features of the rhetorical question; there are no works in which the functions of the rhetorical question, its role, in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity and in the system of intensification of the statement would be studied.
The relevance ■ of the study is due1 to the prevalence of rhetorical questions in speech and the lack of a systematic description of their structural, semantic, stylistic features, their functions as an utterance intensifier in monologue/dialogic speech, and the correlation* of affirmative characteristics of the parts. DE, places in the logical-semantic structure of SFU.
The development of new areas of modern linguistics - text linguistics and pragmalinguistics - requires the study of the communicative features of language structures, taking into account the relationship between their explicit and implicit characteristics, their autonomous and context-related meanings.
Modern linguistics proceeds from the recognition that the final product of the grammar of a language is not a sentence, but a coherent text. The spread of grammatical interest beyond the sentence invariably changes the perspective of analysis as a whole and leads to a restructuring of traditional approaches [Pozdeev 1981: 121]. An analysis of such a phenomenon as a rhetorical question is impossible without considering it against the background of a larger structure, i.e. text.
Until recently, the text in its relation to the sentence was reduced to the concept of a diagnosing context, that is, the textual minimum that is necessary to reveal the functional purpose of various aspects, forms and elements of the sentence [Bloch 2000: 113]. Currently, the subject of research is the construction of the text, its constitutive elements, both formal and content. In the present study, following T. van Dijk, the text means a complex multidimensional formation, consisting of interrelated factors and elements, where not just the linear nature of the chain is important, but the nature of the relationship between sentences in their coherent sequence [Dijk 1989: 126]. As M.Ya. Bloch, in the objective reality of language, the text exists not only as a contextual minimum for the diagnosis of meaning, but as a complete whole, whether it be a written monologue essay or an oral dialogue [Bloch 2000: 113].
Recognizing the entire conventionality of the distinction between monologue and dialogue, which is pointed out by Russian and foreign researchers [Vygotsky 1934; Bakhtin 1979; Radzikhovsky 1985, 1988; Semenenko 1996: 8; Yakubinsky 1986: 26, 34; Vinokur 1990: 217; Makarov 1998: 71; Myerson 1994 and others], we will distinguish between a monologue and a dialogue, defining a monologue as a unidirectional structure, a linear chain of sentences; and dialogue as a multidirectional structure, alternating a chain of sentences formed by the alternation of statements by two or more participants in a speech act [Bloch 2000: 116; Moskalskaya 1981: 123].
A monologue is a form of speech formed as a result of active speech activity, designed for passive and indirect perception. Monologue speech can be defined as an intrapersonal speech act, which is characterized by significant segments of text, consisting of structurally and meaningfully related statements that have an individual compositional structure and relative semantic completeness [Vinokur 1990: 310].
A special role in distinguishing between types and forms of speech in a text is played by super-phrasal unity (SPU) - the unity of two or more independent sentences characterized by semantic, communicative and structural completeness and developing one “micro-theme” [Galperin 1981: 67; Kukharenko 1988: 68-69; Gak 2000: 777-778].
Dialogue is an ordered sequence of verbal actions carried out by at least two participants in communication, during which the communicants exchange roles and jointly create a text consisting of dialogic units (DE) [Shvedova 1956; Valyusinskaya 1979; Chakhoyan 1979; Slavgorodskaya 1986; Hundsnurscher 1998 and others]
Usually DU is defined as a monothematic unit of dialogue, given by a communicative intention and expressed in logical-semantic coherence, as well as grammatical, lexical, prosodic (full or partial) integrity [Moskalskaya 1981: 42-43; Mikhailov 1994: 152 and others]. DU is isolated from the dialogue on the basis of the completeness of the communicative interaction. The main signal of its border is a change in communicative intention. The intentionality of the speech course is a condition for normal communication [Komina 1983: 127-128; Susov 1984: 7; Pocheptsov 1986: 74; Romanov 1989: 41 and others].
The leading role in the formation of the DU structure belongs to pragmatic factors [Gasteva 1990: 3]. The pragmatic meaning of the response cue is inextricably linked with the pragmatic meaning of the initiating cue, i.e. it is largely determined by the pragmatic type - DE, of which the response cue is a part. The correlation of pragmatic types of sentences and pragmatic types of DU allows us to distinguish between DU by the final intention of the speech act that constitutes all pragmatic types of sentences identified in pragmatic syntax based on the structure of a speech act without taking into account the two-way nature of communication can be attributed to the types used as the first part of the DU [Chikurova 1985: 129-135]. In the study, we take as a basis the classification of speech acts proposed by G.G. Pocheptsov, in which five pragmatic types of sentences are distinguished - constative, promissive, and menasive, performative, directives, quesitive - supplementing it with some other types of speech acts (phatic, emotive and etc.).
The object of the research is a rhetorical question as an intensifier of an utterance, its structural and stylistic features, contextual conditionality, and its role in dialogic and monologue text structures.
The theoretical basis of the study is the achievements of domestic and foreign linguistics in the field of text linguistics [Dyck 1976; Galperin 1981; Moskalskaya 1981; Goncharova 1983; Kukharenko 1988; Bogdanov 1993; Paducheva 1996; Gak 2000 and others], pragmatists [Austin 1986; Searle 1986; G. G. Pocheptsov 1971, 1981; G. G. Pocheptsov (Jr.) 1983, 1987; Susov 1980, 1983, 1986; O. G. Pocheptsov 1986; Semenenko 1996; Makarov 1998 and others]1, cognitive linguistics [Dyck 1989; Paducheva 1996 and others), stylistics [Galperin 1977; Arnold 1981, Skrebnev 1975, 1985; Turansky 1990, 1991 and others].
The purpose of the study is to implement a comprehensive, integral approach to the study of such a complex phenomenon as a rhetorical question.
The goal is to solve the following research problems:
1) identify the structural and syntactic features of a rhetorical question;
2) analyze the conditions for the dependence of a rhetorical question on the context;
3) determine the role of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity;
4) describe the functions of a rhetorical question in monologue speech (author's / character; external / internal), determine the level of intensity of the statement represented by a rhetorical question;
5) describe the ratio of affirmative characteristics of a rhetorical question and initiating / response replicas in a dialogic unity.
The scientific novelty of the dissertation lies in the fact that for the first time an attempt was made in it for an integrated approach to the study of a rhetorical question: a systematic description of its structural-syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic features, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of parts of a dialogic unity, in which the rhetorical question acts as an initiating or response remark; its role as an intensifier in monological superphrasal unities is determined, the place of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the text is determined; the contextual conditionality of rhetorical questions is analyzed, the dependence / independence of rhetorical questions from the context is described.
The paper gives a definition of a rhetorical question, which reflects the linguistic nature of the phenomenon under study; signs of rhetoric are described.
The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that it determines the place of the rhetorical question in the system of means * expressing the semantic category of intensity in the English language; the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of monological and dialogic SPU is described; the mechanism of interaction between the affirmativeness of the RE and the affirmativeness of the reacting / initiating replica in DU was revealed; structural-semantic types of rhetorical questions are described; the conditions for dependence / independence of RT from the context are defined. The results obtained may contribute to further "research in the field of the rhetorical question, for example, in the social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling-communicative processes." (Verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions4 of the subject, etc.).
The practical value of the work is determined by the possibility of using the results of the research in lecture courses and seminars on general linguistics, theoretical grammar, stylistics of the English language, special courses on linguistics of text and colloquial speech, in the practice of teaching English, in compiling teaching aids works.
The solution of the formulated problems was carried out by applying a "complex research methodology. The main method of analysis is the transformation method. The procedure for identifying an indirect statement of a rhetorical question is the transformation of an interrogative structure into an affirmative one (positive or negative in form):
1) Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw 1: 60) -» I should not waste your time in discussing what is inevitable.
2) Isn "t the answer obvious? (Sheldon: 362) -> The answer is obvious.
The work also used such methods of analysis as contextual-semantic, statistical, method of logical-semantic analysis.
This dissertation completes the list of works that use logical tools. The advantage of the logical-semantic approach is that a simple logical toolkit is used as a means of obtaining new linguistic data about the types of text structures. The term "logical-semantic" reflects the essence of the approach: semantics is the goal of research, logic and its apparatus are the means [Inshina 1989: 7]. Formal logic describes the relationship between logical objects with the help of five intentional connections: conjunction (connection of the type "A and B" - AdB), disjunction (connection of the type "A or B" - AvB), negation (connection of the type "A, not A" - A, A), implications “If A, then B” - Az>B), and equivalence (connection of the form “A, that is B” - A~B) [Kondakov 1976: 149-150, 192-193, 264, 421-423, 677]. This list should be supplemented with the relation of anti-implication (“A, but not B” - A-0B)1, which combines signs of denial and implication and is expressed in opposing and concessive structures [Chikurova 1981, 1987].
Sentimental connectives are marked with language units that act as logical constants. The marker of the conjunctive connection is and, the equivalence - that is, the markers of the right-hand implication (the antecedent precedes the consequent) - so, therefore, as a result of, the left-hand implication (the consequent precedes the antecedent) - that as, for, because [Chikurova 1981, 1987]. Determining the presence of a marker or substituting it is a procedure for identifying the SFU of the corresponding logical-semantic type.
The research material included about 5,000 examples obtained from the works of English and American authors, including fiction and
1 Following M.F. Chikurova uses here a sign that reflects the conjunction of elements of the surface structure and the disjunction of the deep structure [Chikurova 1991], publicistic texts, as well as the material of the Dictionary of Quotations (The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations).
The following provisions are put forward for defense:
1. Rhetorical, the question is an intensifier, the degree of intensity of which increases with the increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition.
2. A rhetorical question has all syntactic forms * of an interrogative sentence and all structural forms.
3. A rhetorical question - in - monologue, unity is used mainly in reasoning or is an element1 of reasoning * in * as part of other compositional speech forms, participating in the formation of a logical-semantic implication or anti-implication, expressing cause, effect or effect, opposite expected. The intensity of a rhetorical question in reasoning* can reach the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity.
4. A rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both an initiating and a response remark: In the role of a response, a rhetorical question expresses both agreement and disagreement with the initiating remark. The form of expressing consent is affirmative, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmative, coinciding with the initiating remark.
5. A rhetorical question is an amalgamated speech act and is introduced in the text by speaking verbs (to say, to tell, etc.): speech1 act. Another proof of the importance of the form of RW is the possibility of answering it. Interrogativeness as the meaning of the form is the intensifier of the statement and the third sign of the essentiality of the direct meaning of the indirect speech act.
6. The rhetoric of a large number of rhetorical questions is free from context, since it is determined by the syntactic structure of the RW and its internal semantics. The rhetoric of context-dependent rhetorical questions is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes, including the volume of the entire work, which is typical for a rhetorical question in strong positions of the text.
Approbation of the work was carried out at scientific conferences of teachers of the Department of Linguistics and Translation of the Tula State University (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005), at the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Languages and the Picture of the World" (Tula State University, 2002); at scientific and methodological seminars of graduate students. Based on the research materials, seven scientific articles have been published.
The main goal and objectives of the study determine the structure of the dissertation work, which consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a list of scientific and fiction literature, and a list of dictionaries.
Conclusion of scientific work thesis on "Rhetorical question in English"
A rhetorical question in a dialogic unity can be used as a - * as a response or as an initiating replica DE.
The main pragmatic functions of the RE-response cue are the expressions of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect utterance. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement, i.e. expressed by a positive sentence or by a negative sentence containing an even number of negators. Rhetoric is a negator entering into. interaction with a grammatical or lexical negator that is * present in the composition of the RE" and provides a positive indirect statement of the RE. Positive in form, the RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement, while rhetoric is a negator that provides a negative-indirect statement of the RE. Coincidence of information signs of the initiating and the reciprocal replica is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the reciprocal replica.
Positive in form RT "is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement, i.e. expressed by a positive sentence or a negative sentence containing an even number of negators. At the same time, rhetoric is a negator that provides a negative indirect utterance of RV. A rhetorical question, containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with the grammatical or lexical negator that is present in the RW "and provides a positive indirect statement of the RW. The discrepancy between the information signs of the initiating and response replicas is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica. The indirect utterance of the RE as part of the response replica can be equivalent to an implicit or explicit marker of disagreement, and can also be in the logical-semantic relationship of conjunction or implication with it. In the latter case, RW acts, as a rule, as an antecedent of the left-hand implicative structure.
RE in a response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of RT, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement.
Rhetorical, the question in response can take the form of a quotation question. The main meaning of quotation RTs, as well as most of the ^ RTs, is the value of agreement / disagreement with the initiating remark, depending on its form. In most cases, like standard RTs, cited RTs are in relation to an implication with an implicit or explicit agree/disagree marker and are the antecedent of the implication.
Among the rhetorical quotation questions, a number of constructions stand out - rhetorical clichés, acting as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement. Rhetorical cliché Why not? and Why should.? express agreement or disagreement depending on the form of the initiating replica and illustrate the patterns characteristic of complete RTs.
A rhetorical cliché that expresses disagreement with the initiating remark, regardless of its form, is a RE-cliché containing "How can (could).?
Rhetorical clichés, the accompanying meaning of which is agreement / disagreement, regardless of the form of the initiating remark, are the clichés Who cares?, Who knows? and their semantic variants (What do I care?, Why should I care?, What does that matter?, What difference does it make?; How should I know?, etc.) The main meaning of these clichés is uncertainty, the interlocutor's reactions, and they implement the third pragmatic type of reactive remarks - avoidance of an answer.
Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such replies (as well as most of the reactive replicas) is the expression of agreement (full > or partial) or disagreement with the statement, realized by the indirect utterance of RV. Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.
In a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to the quesitive. In such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser differently. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication of the RW, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive, and reports information that refutes the content of the RW. In DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV becomes essential, i.e. there is a realization of the primary meaning of the indirect speech act.
A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such DUs are characterized as mismatched, since they have a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants due to the violation of the G.P. Relevance Postulate. Grice.
CONCLUSION
In this work, a rhetorical question is understood as a figure of speech, which consists in giving an affirmation or denial of an interrogative form in order to create a stylistic effect, attract increased attention, and increase the emotional tone of the utterance. Rhetoric is a stylistic and pragmatic function of a specific syntactic structure, the positivity and negativity of which are two sides of one phenomenon - a rhetorical question, which is characterized by an asymmetry in the affirmativeness of its formal and content characteristics. A positive RW "realizes a negative constative, while a negative RW is a form of realization of a positive constative. The presence of a statement in the form of a question and the asymmetry of the affirmativeness of the formal and meaningful characteristics of an interrogative sentence are recognized as the main signs of rhetoric. The absence of an informative answer to a RW is a characteristic, but not an obligatory sign of rhetoric .
A rhetorical question has all the syntactic forms of an interrogative sentence and all constructive structural forms. The most typical for RV are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word. RE in the form of other syntactic types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question) is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.
The rhetoric of context-dependent RW is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes. The context revealing the meaning of the RE can be limited to the minimum context1 in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the RE; spread over several SFU or cover the volume of the entire work. The rhetoric of RT, which contains intertext - allusions, references, etc., as well as acting as a precedent statement, i.e. quotes, manifests itself against the background of the deep, background context of the work.
The rhetoric of context-free RT is determined by the syntactic and semantic completeness of the sentence. A significant group of RTs, the rhetoric of which is free from context, are questions; containing universal truth - an indisputable fact based on the phenomena of reality, universal values, social structure and norms of behavior in society. The obviousness and indisputability of the judgment contained in the RW excludes the possibility of its functioning as a quesitive, since it makes the request for information redundant. The universal truths expressed by the RW are distinguished by the “volume of universality” and include judgments, the indisputability of which is explained both by the objective processes of the surrounding world and universal values, and based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker.
A special place among RT, the rhetoric of which does not depend on the context, is occupied by stable constructions (rhetorical clichés) - a group of interrogative sentences in the form that are often used in the meaning of RT, and therefore their quesitiveness is "erased".
The rhetorical question plays an essential role in the construction of the logical structure of the utterance, both in monologue and dialogic speech: an emphatic statement in the form of RV is, as a rule, an element of a causal or adversative relationship, a left-handed "or right-handed implication or anti-implication. B4 logical - the semantic structure of the utterance - RT plays the role of a cause (antecedent of implication), a consequence (consequent of implication) or a consequence "opposite to what is expected (anticosequent of anti-implication). The dominant position of RE in the composition of implicative SFU is the position of the consequent (consequence), which can be presented both in preposition and in postposition to the antecedent.
In monologue speech, a rhetorical question is used in any compositional speech form, however, it is most typical for reasoning both in the author's speech and in character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. the level of intensity (up to the twelfth degree - on the scale of intensity) RW implements in the author's reasoning - in a lyrical digression - and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality .
In storytelling, RW is used to create an atmosphere of tension, a more vivid description of events, convey the feelings and experiences of heroes, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration "in character speech. Bf objectified storytelling" RW is rare.
In the description, a rhetorical question serves as a means of expressing the author's attitude towards the described character (place) and is more typical for dynamic descriptions, which include > descriptions of the character, behavior, lifestyle, experiences of the character.
A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional-speech forms: narrative and reasoning or description and reasoning, where elements of reasoning containing the narrator's (character's) assessment of the events, people, etc. are presented as a rhetorical question. and reflecting the views of the author (narrator or character) regarding? one or another trait of character, deed, way of life of a character or thought inspired by the object of description.
The degree of intensification of the utterance presented by RW- in the narration and description varies from the first to the fourth scale of intensity.
The rhetorical question in dialogical unity is used as both a response and an initiating remark.
The main pragmatic functions of the RE-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The form of expression of agreement is affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expression of disagreement is affirmativeness, which coincides with the initiating remark. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect utterance. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. Positive in form RV * is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator, which is present in the composition of the RW*. The coincidence of signs-information of the initiating remark and the indirect utterance of the RE-response remark is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response remark.
Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or "grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement. The discrepancy between the signs of the information of the initiating replica and the RV-response replica is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica.
An indirect utterance of a RT as part of a response replica can be equivalent to an implicit or explicit marker of disagreement, and can also be in a logical-semantic relation of conjunction or implication with it. In the latter case, the RE acts, as a rule, as an antecedent of the left-hand implicative structure.
RE" in the response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of RE, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication1 to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement.
A rhetorical question in a response "remark can take the form of a quotation question. The main meaning of quotation RTs; like most RTs, is the value of agreement / disagreement with the initiating remark, depending on its form. Among rhetorical quotation questions, a number of constructions stand out - rhetorical clichés as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement, both depending on and regardless of the form of the initiating remark.The pragmatic meaning of a number of clichéd quotation questions as a response is the uncertainty of the interlocutor's reaction, which implements avoidance of the answer.
Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such response replicas (as well as the majority of reactive replicas) * is the expression of agreement (full or partial) or disagreement with the statement realized by the indirect statement RV: Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.
In "a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to a quesitive. In" such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser in different ways. Addressee who does not agree with the implication RV; intentionally interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content of the RE. In DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV becomes essential, i.e. there is a realization of the primary meaning of the indirect speech act.
A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such MUs are characterized as mismatched, since they are characterized by a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants.
Thus, the study is a comprehensive approach to the study of such a phenomenon as a rhetorical question. The results obtained in the course of the study reflect the structural, semantic, pragmatic features of a rhetorical question, the features of its functioning in a dialogical and monologue text and can contribute to further research in the field of a rhetorical question, for example, in social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling communicative processes (verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions of the subject, etc.). I
List of scientific literature Belokolotskaya, Svetlana Aleksandrovna, dissertation on the topic "Germanic languages"
1. Akulenko V. V. Typology of adjectives of the Russian language, expressing the intensity of the attribute / V. V. Akulenko // Russian Linguistics. - Kyiv, 1978.-Vol. 14.-S. 82-89.
3. Andrievskaya A. M. Improperly direct speech in the artistic prose of Louis Aragon / A. M. Andrievskaya Kyiv, 1967. - 170 p.
4. Apresyan Yu. D. Principles of semantic description of language units / Yu. D. Apresyan // Semantics and knowledge representation. Tartu: Publishing House of the Tartu State University. un-ta, 1980. - Issue. 519. - S. 3-24.
5. Arnold I. V. The value of a strong position for the interpretation of a literary text / I. V. Arnold // Foreign languages at school. - 1978. -№ 4. -S. 23-31.
6. Arnold I. V. Stylistics of the modern English language / I. V. Arnold. 2nd ed., revised. - M.: Enlightenment, 1981. - 295 p.
7. Arutyunova N. D. Dialogical citation (on the problem of someone else's speech) / N. D. Arutyunova // Questions of linguistics. - 1986. No. 1. - p. 50-64.
8. Arkhipova L.V. Rhetorical technique of auto-interpretation as a means of organizing discourse / on the material of English scientific prose: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / L. V. Arkhipova. St. Petersburg, 2002. - 23 p.
9. Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary of linguistic terms / O. S. Akhmanova. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966. - 608 p.
10. Bally S. French style / S. Bally. M.: Foreign Literature, 1961. - 394 p.
11. Babaitsev V.V. Russian language. Theory. / V. V. Babaitsev, L. D. Chesnokov. M.: Enlightenment, 1994. - 365 p.
12. Baranov A. N. Illocutionary compulsion in the structure of the dialogue / A. N. Baranov, G. E. Kreidlin // Questions of linguistics. 1992. - No. 2. - S. 84f -99.
13. Batalova I. K. Communicative, semantic-grammatical and stylistic organization of a coherent statement / I. K. Batalova // Structural and functional features of the sentence and text: - Sverdlovsk, 1989.-S. 19-31.
14. Bakhtin M. M. Word in the novel / M. M. Bakhtin // Questions of literature and aesthetics. M.: Fiction, 1975. - 502 p.
15. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity / M. M. Bakhtin. M., 1979. -423 s.t.
16. Berdnik L. F. Interrogative sentences with narrative f meaning in modern Russian: author. dis. . Candidate of Philology / L. F. Berdnik. Rostov-on-Don, 1974. - 23 p.
17. Berdnik L. F. Rhetorical question as an expressive means / L. F. Berdnik // Rhetoric and syntactic structures: theses of reports and messages. -Krasnoyarsk, 1988: S. 4-7.
18. Bogdanov VV Classification of speech acts / VV Bogdanov // Interpersonal aspects of language communication. - Kalinin: Kalinin state. un-t, 1989.-p. 26-37.
19. Bogdanov VV Silence as a zero speech act and its role in verbal communication / VV Bogdanov // Language communication and its units. - Kalinin: Publishing House of the Kalinin State. un-ta, 1986. S. 12-18.
20. Bogdanov VV Semantic-syntactic organization of the sentence. / V. V. Bogdanov. L .: Publishing House of the Leningrad University, 1977. - 63 p.
21. Bogdanov VV Text and text communication / VV Bogdanov. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1993. 67 p.
22. Bondarenko VN Negation as a logical-grammatical category / V: N. Bondarenko. M.: Nauka, 1983. - 212 p.
23. Bondarko A. V. Fundamentals of functional grammar. Language interpretation of the idea of time / A. V. Bondarko. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1999.-260 p.
24. Brandes MP Stylistics of the German language: a textbook for institutes and faculty. foreign lang. / M. P. Brandes. - M.: Higher School, 1983. - 271 p.
25. ByalousN. I. On the role of the end of the text in the process of text formation (on the basis of short stories by English and American writers) /
26. N. I. Byalous // Linguistic analysis of the text. Irkutsk, 1985. - S. 146-151.
27. Valyusinskaya 3. V. Issues of studying dialogue in the works of Soviet linguists / 3. V. Valyusinskaya // Text syntax. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 368 p.
28. Velik N. V. Rhetorical question in modern French colloquial language / N. V. Velik // Research in the field of humanities. Eagle, 1993.-167 p.1. SCH)
29. Vendler 3. Illocutionary suicide / 3. Vendler // New in foreign linguistics: Issue. XVI. M.: Progress, 1986. - 238-250.
30. Zvegintsev V. A. Proposition and its relation to language and speech / V. A. Zvegintsev. M., 1976. - 213 p.
31. Vinogradov V. V. Improper direct speech and its varieties / / V. V. Vinogradov M., 1963. - 90 p.
32. Vinokur T. G. Characteristics of the structure of the dialogue in the evaluation f of a dramatic work / T. G. Vinokur // The language and style of the writer in the literary-critical analysis of a work of art. - t Kishinev, 1977. S. 64-72.
33. Vinokur T. G. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / T. G. Vinokur. -M., 1990.-S. 217.
34. Vlakhov S. Untranslatable in translation / S. Vlakhov, S. Florin. M.: Higher. school, 1986. - 416 p.
35. Wolf E. M. Functional semantics of evaluation / E. M. Wolf. M.: Nauka, 1985.-228s.f. 45. Vorobyov Yu.K. Rhetorical figures: workshop / Yu. K. Vorobyov. -Saransk: Publishing House of the Mordovian University, 1993. 98 pp.
