UDC

81’271

Authors

Marina Yu. Ryabova
Kemerovo State University
6 Krasnaya St., Kemerovo, 650043, Russian Federation;
e-mail: mriabova@inbox.ru

Abstract

The article deals with some communicative models typical of the people of Great Britain, such as formulae of apology, the choice of which is determined by etiquette rules established within British culture. The author describes the functions of etiquette communication, such as: establishment of a contact, regulating, modal and emotive, and addressee orientation. The system of linguistic means representing etiquette behaviour is analysed at different hierarchical levels, including lexical, grammatical, stylistic, intonation and communication levels of the language. The choice of etiquette forms in speech is determined by illocution goals, as well as by politeness strategies and social and class preferences of the communicants, including such factors as: their age, social status, official position, nationality, gender, profession, and class status. The description of etiquette forms of communication is presented in a new aspect of different politeness models: absolute, relative, positive or negative politeness. The author analysed communicative functions of etiquette forms of apology, including such meanings as: shame for being rude, feeling guilty, feeling sorry, asking to repeat, audacity in supposing something, necessity to interrupt the communication, etc. The article states that the act of apology is aimed to balance the communicants’ relations and make them equal in their status or at least reduce this inequality.

Keywords

speech etiquette, communicative behaviour, communicative situation, speech formulae, positive and negative politeness

References

1. Hitchings H. Sorry! The English and Their Manners. London, 2013. 392 p.
   
2. Formanovskaya N.I. Russkiy rechevoy etiket: lingvisticheskiy i metodicheskiy aspekty [Russian Speech Etiquette: Linguistic and Methodological Aspects]. Moscow, 2006. 158 p.
   
3. Grays P. Logika i rechevoe obshchenie [Logic and Conversation]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike. Vyp. XVI. Lingvisticheskaya pragmatika [Recent Developments in Foreign Linguistics. Vol. XVI. Linguistic Pragmatics]. Moscow, 1985, pp. 217–237.
   
4. Larina T.V. Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil’ kommunikatsii: sopostavlenie angliyskikh i russkikh lingvokul’turnykh traditsiy [The Category of Politeness and the Style of Communication: English and Russian Linguocultural Traditions Compared]. Moscow, 2009. 512 p.
   
5. Ryabova M.Yu. Kommunikativnye funktsii evfemii v politicheskom diskurse. Filologicheskie nauki [Communicative Functions of Euphemy in Political Discourse]. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2014, no. 5(35). Pt. II, pp. 177–181.
   
6. Foks K. Angliya i anglichane. To, o chem umalchivayut putevoditeli [England and the English. What Guides Fail to Mention]. Moscow, 2012. 512 p.
   
7. Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics. Sigapore, 1996. 250 p.
   
8. Le Carré J. Smiley Versus Karla. London, 1988. 952 p.