№2(78)/2015 Серия педагогика
жүктеу/скачать 4,99 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
| – Спасибо, брат, – сказал Андрей.
Moreover some common forms of address such as kiddos, guys, bud are used in a particular male col- lective or group. – Спасибо, парни, я это никогда не забуду…. – Во, лучше так, — согласился здоровяк. — Правильно, пацаны? – Могу устроить тебе такие гастроли, корешина, что ты просто очумеешь! — в карьер по де- лу погнал Витёк. The lexemes with diminutive forms are often used in relations to women, e.g.: – Сегодня уже не выйдет, душечка, — сказал я и потянул ее за рукав. – Ну, давай, детка, давай. Давай, проси. Я все для тебя сделаю, моя радость. – Сколько ты хочешь, киска? — спросил я, обнимая ее за талию. The concrete semantic value of emotional and evaluative words which are traditionally used as forms of address is losing, they get only some or other general emotional connotation tone, e.g.: sweetheart, dear, darling. – Все будет зависеть от тебя, дорогая, — сказал я. — Если ты будешь обижать меня каждый день… . – Милая, ну зачем? Зачем тебе с такой беспощадностью отрабатывать эту идиотскую, на- сильно вбитую в тебя природой и обществом программу, чтобы заставить меня страдать все сильнее и сильнее? In relation to those who enters to a privacy circle (the family members, for instance) Russians are often impolite or even rude, e.g.: – Тебе все понятно, моя дурочка? – Жалко, — ответила она, — Конечно, жалко, глупый. It might be a contradiction of Russian character based on opposites and that was noted by many re- searchers. Opposing Russian ‘culture of the end’ with western ‘culture of the mean’ the German philosopher V. Shubart makes a conclusion about Russian nature in Orthodoxy peculiarities by saying that Russians are strange to median. Russians have no absorbing midsection no linking part between the two extremes. Rus- sians are full of contrasts which are very next to each other and their hard friction pounds soul to wounds. There is rudeness near tenderness of heart, cruelty near sentimentality, sensibility near ascesis, depravity near holiness [5]. Therefore, in a concrete speech situation the emotional content of the words used in the form of address can get new shades even up to the opposite emotional coloring. Therefore, less social distance, i.e. the closeness of the relationship, typical to Russian culture, enhances the communicative accessibility and promotes lesser regulation of behavior. It allows interlocutors to behave more freely, speak directly about what they want to and what they think of. In the process of communication Russian people feel as a part of the team, they are sure that their interests, concerns, wishes, advice and opin- ions are very interesting to interlocutors and they expect comprehension in a response. In this type of rela- tionship straightness and imperative are not a threat or a hindrance harmonious relations (to the extent as in the English culture) and do not violate the principles of politeness characteristic of Russian communicative tradition. Destruction at first of the stable system of appeals that existed until 1917, and then destruction of the system, which was established in the Soviet era, and the gradual, not always obvious, the formation of new, no stylistically neutral forms of address to a stranger, frequent breaches of etiquette in the media, the impact of foreign language etiquette tradition — are the causes of a wide variety of forms of address, being used nowadays in the modern society. As once said M.A. Krongauz: "just forms of address in Russia turned out to be at the center of two socio-linguistic radical change — the «revolutionary» and «perestroika» [6]. Changing of ideology turned the ideologized system of forms of address that has developed in the Sovi- et era. First of all, we should note the change in the use of socially marked forms of address. However, the uncertainty of the future path of Russia, the ideological fragmentation of society does not contribute to the formation of a new system of forms of address. The desire to avoid politically engaged forms of address, the need for today's mass media to address to the general public — brought the most gen- eralized forms of address to life at the present time: Russians!, Dear Compatriots!, Dear Russians!, Dear Compatriots!, Dear Muscovites! Dear friends! There is also a change in the status of form of address «comrade». This form of address has ceased to be widely used, to be neutral. The word «Sir» was used exclusively in the diplomatic environment, but nowa- Lexical-semantic Analysis of Address… Серия «Педагогика». № 2(78)/2015 287 days it is used in more situations and is rapidly expanded in different fields. An important role was played by the general revaluation of the pre-revolutionary Russian life. Interest in the culture of pre-revolutionary Russia and Western European influence gave rise to a com- pound of different cultural, traditional etiquette, which created a very mixed situation in the sphere of using the forms of address. We can observe the resurgence of status forms of address as «Your Excellency». The absence of a single common forms of address led to increasing of colloquial forms of address into speech of wide community. Particularly, forms of address like «man» and «woman» are common today, bor- rowings from other languages such as Madame, pani, etc. are widely used in everyday communication. Manner to address to people and call them by name and surname or by just name in formal settings of- ficial appeared and wide spread. Full form of a name is used as an official form of address. In the family relationships can also note the tendency to further democratization of communication, the rejection of forms of address, calling the direct role of family members. Marking the existence of social groups, forms of address can express political attitudes of certain social, political associations. Thus, the system of forms of address, which is used in everyday communication at the moment is not fully formed and well regulated. References 1 Трахтенберг Р.Л. Гастролер. — СПб.: АСТ, Астрель, 2007. — 76 с. 2 Санаев П. Похороните меня за плинтусом. — М.: МК-Периодика, 2007. — 184 с. 3 Пелевин В. S.N.U.F.F. — М.: Эксмо, 2011. — 480 с. 4 Ларина Т.В. Категория вежливости и стиль коммуникации: Сопоставление английских и русских лингво-культурных традиций. — М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2009. — 516 с. 5 Стефаненко Т.Г. Этнопсихология: Учебник для вузов. — 3-е изд., испр. и доп. — М.: Аспект Пресс, 2004. — 320 с. 6 Кронгауз М.А. Русский язык на грани нервного срыва. — М.: Знак: Языки славянских культур, 2007. — 229 с. Б.Ж.Құтбаева, Н.Станчу жүктеу/скачать 4,99 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|