ANTI-ETIQUETTE FORMS OF COMMUNICATION IN THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PICTURE OF THE WORLD (BASED ON THE NOVEL BY J.D. SALINGER “THE CATCHER IN THE RYE”)
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze the anti-etiquette forms of communication in the novel J.D. Selinger “The catcher in the rye”, which provided for solving the following tasks: 1) to find out the basic approaches to the definition and refinement of the concept of “anti-etiquette forms of communication”; 2) characterize the forms of anti-etiquette communication; 2) classify them on a semantic basis.
Methods of research: analysis and synthesis, inductive and deductive methods have allowed theoretically to comprehend modern research approaches to the formation of anti-etiquette speech behavior of the individual; the method of continuous sampling and contextual-interpretation analysis was applied to the formation and processing of the research corps of the actual material.
Results. The author classified the anti-etiquette forms of communication into invective, slang, parasite words, negative-grade vocabulary, as well as characterizing the tendencies of speech formation of characters, namely, Colhild Holden, in the image of which J.D. Selinger clearly reflected the non-conformist attitude.
Holden's behavior is a challenge to the non-spiritual existence of society and the conformism of the layman. It is proved that the writer's aesthetic views are manifested in his philosophical consciousness through the sensory knowledge of the world, contemplative and creative attitude of man to reality, in the subjective development of the environment through the state of spiritual-sensory euphoria, elevation, catharsis, spiritual enjoyment, etc. The peculiarity of the language picture of the world of J.D. Selinger is the innovative approach to manners of the narrative, the depiction of characters, their language, the way of representing reality, the attitude of the protagonist to life.
The study found that anti-etiquette forms of communication acquire a bulky artistic-figurative subtext value, become semantically multidimensional. Most of them, characterized by semantic visage, are marked by social magnetization. The internal individual and authorial form of them is conditioned by the system-shaped Holden attitude to reality.
Conclusions. The analyzed material allowed to classify anti-etiquette forms of communication in the following groups: 1. aggressive (directed to a person, used for drawing images); 2. explosive (lexical units aimed at the situation, used for expressing emotions); 3. invective; 4. slang; 5. parasite words.
Thus, anti-etiquette communication manifests itself in stylistically reduced vocabulary, image, negative comparisons, etc.
References
2. Дмитриенко Г.В. Вербальная инвектива в англо¬язычном лексическом субстандарте : автореф. дисс. … канд. филол. наук : 10.02.14. Пятигорск, 2007. 17 с.
3. Левицький А.Е. Особливості функціональної переорієнтації одиниць зниженого стилістичного тону сучасної англійської мови. Лабораторія славістичних студій. 1997. Вип. 3. С. 177–179.
4. Разлогова Е.Э. К вопросу о специфических употреблениях модальных слов: слова-паразиты в русской и французской речи. Вестник Московского универси¬тета. Серия «Филология». 2003. № 6. С. 152–169.
5. Форманова С.В. Антиетикетні форми спілкування. Мова: науково-теоретичний часопис з мовознавства. 2013. Вип. 19. С. 65–69.
6. Форманова С.В. Інвективи в українській мові : дис. … докт. філол. наук : 10.02.01. Одеса, 2013. 465 с.
7. Форманова С.В. Неввічливість, грубість, антиетикет як об’єкт вивчення в сучасній лінгвістиці. Одеська лінгвістична школа у просторах інтерпретацій : колективна монографія / за заг. ред. Т.Ю. Ковалевської. Одеса : ПолиПринт, 2017. С. 215–225.
8. Anderson L.G., Trudgil P. Bad language. Oxford : Basil Blackwell LTD, Bailey L.A., 1990. 202 p.
9. Austin J. Politeness revisited – the dark side. New Zealand ways of speaking English / A. Bell, J. Holmes (eds.). Clevedon, Philadelphia : Multilingual Matters, 1990. Р. 277–293.
10. Bousfield D. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2008. 282 p.
11. Bousfield D. Impoliteness in the struggle for power. Impoliteness in language: studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin : de Gruyter, 2008. P. 127–153.
12. Brown P., Levinson S.C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. London ; New York : CUP, 1987. 345 p.
13. Carston R. Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics. Mind and Language. 2002. № 1–2. P. 127–148.
14. Culpeper J. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics. 1996. № 25. P. 349–367.
15. Culpeper J. Impoliteness and the entertainment in the television quiz show: “the Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research. 2005. Vol. 1. № 1. P. 35–72.
16. Hoffman G. Schimpfwörter der Griechen und Römer. Wiss. Beilage zum Programm des Friedrichsrealgymnasiums
Berlin, 1892. S. 291. URL: https://science.law.muni. cz/knihy/Staat_und_Gesellschaft_der_Griechen_und_ Romer.pdf (дата звернення: 05.04.2019).
17. Locher M. Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research. 2010. Vol. 6. P. 1–5.
18. McEnery T. Swearing in English: bad language, purity power from 1586 to the present. London ; New York : Routledge, 2006. 300 p.
19. Miniconi P.-J. Les termes d’injure dans le theatre comique. R.E.L. 1958. Vol. XXXVIII. P. 159–175.
20. Reimers F.H. Der plautinis Schimfworter Katalog: Diss. Koln, 1957. 200 p.
21. Salinger J.D. The catcher in the rye. Санкт-Петербург : Антология ; КАРО, 2016. 288 с.
22. Schwarz M., Chur J. Semantik : Ein Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen : Narr Verlag, 2007. 205 S.
23. Searle J.R. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis : Gunderson, 1975. P. 344–369.
24. Terkourafi M. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness. Impoliteness in Language: studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin : Mouton de Grueter, 2008. P. 45–74.