модели, определяющей формирование художественного хронотопа.
Согласно Н.Н. Болдыреву, « использование понятия «когнитивная
матрица» в отношении разных структурных типов многоаспектного
формата знания , с одной стороны, вызвано необходимостью передать такое
строение сложного концепта (концептуальной структуры), существенной
чертой которого является интегративность и, в то же время, опциональность
его элементов» [4,60]. Когнитивно-матричное моделирование является
одним из исследовательских приемов в системе когнитивно-матричного
анализа, разработанного Н.Н.Болдыревым для исследования единиц
особого формата, которые нельзя отнести к числу стереотипных знаний.
Когнитивная матрица сводит воедино знания о разных аспектах одного
явления в систему разных когнитивных контекстов, представленных ее
компонентами интегративно в рамках единого сложного концепта, которые
, к тому же, могут отличаться разным уровнем сложности, а содержание их
может варьироваться от обыденного до экспертного. В соответствии с
данным подходом была разработана когнитивная матрица пространственно-
временного континуума в романе С.Рушди «Дети полуночи», компоненты
которой определяют основные сюжетные линии произведения.
Схема 1 - Когнитивная матрица пространственно – временного
континуума в романе С.Рушди «Дети полуночи»
Данная модель отражает интегративный подход к изучению
концепта пространственно-временного континуума как организационного
центра всей когнитивной структуры романа с позиций этнокультурной
когнитивной лингвистики, а также с позиций литературоведения как
формально-содержательной категории хронотопа романа (М.М. Бахтин),
определяющего его жанрово-типическую разновидность.
Список литературы
1 Горбачев В.В. Концепции современного естествознания. - М.: Мир и
Образование, 2003. – 592 с.
2 Дубнищева Т.Я. Концепции современного естествознания. - Новосибирск:
Издательство ЮКЭА, 1997.- 831с.
3 Философский энциклопедический словарь. - М.: Советская Энциклопедия,
1989.- 815 с.
4 Болдырев Н.Н. Когнитивная семантика. - Тамбов: Издательский дом
ТГУ им. Г.Р.Державина, 2014. – 235 с.
5 Маслова В.А. Введение в когнитивную лингвистику. - М.: Флинта: Наука,
2004. - 294 с.
6 Корнилов О.А. Языковые картины мира. - М.: КДУ, 2003. - 348 с.
7 Рябцева Н.Е. Аксиологические модели времени. //Логический анализ
языка: Язык и время - М.: Индрик, 1997. – С.78-95.
8 Салимова Д.А., Данилова Ю.Ю. Время и пространство как категории
текста: теория и опыт исследования. - М.: Флинта: Наука, 2009. – 200 с.
9 Бахтин М.М. Формы времени и хронотопа в романе.// Вопросы литературы
и эстетики. - М.: Художественная литература, 1975. -С. 234- 401.
10 Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. - М.:
Наука, 1981. – 139 с.
Жумагулова Б.С., Сартбаева Э.К.,
ф.ғ.к. лингвистика жҽне коммуникация теориясы кафедрасының доценті,
2 курс магистранты, Абылай хан атындағы ҚазХҚжҼТУ,
Алматы, Қазақстан
С. Рушдидің «Тҥн қойнауындағы балалар» атты романындағы кӛркем
хронотоп уақыт кеңістік континуумы интеграциялық концептісінің
когнитивті-матрицалық моделі
Бұл мақалада когнитивтіклингвистика ғылымындағы уақыт пен кеңістік
категориясын ҽлемнің ұлттық тілдік кҿрінісінің негізгі концептісі жҽне
әдебиеттану ғылымында кҿркем хронотоп категориясы ретінде зерттеу
бағыттары қарастырылады; сондай-ақ, бұл аталған бағыттарды уақыт пен
кеңістік континуумын зерттеуде романның когнитивтік құрылымын
кҿрсететін жҽне оның сюжеттік даму сатысын анықтайтын УКК-ның
когнитивті-матрицалық моделі негізінде жекелеген кҿркем туынды
шеңберінде біріктіру ұсынылады.
Zhumagulova B.S., Sartbayeva E.K.,
c .ph.s., associate professor, graduate student, Kazakh Ablai khan University of
International Relations and World Languages, Almaty, Kazakhstan
The cognitive – matrix model of the integrative concept of space – time
continuum as the basis of literary chronotope in S.Rushdie’s novel
―Midnight’s children‖
This article considers the lines of research of categories of space and time
continuum in cognitive linguistics as the basic concepts of the national language
world picture and in literary studies as a category of a literary chronotope;
proposed to combine these approaches to the study of space – time continuum
within the framework of a separate literary work based on the cognitive – matrix
model of space – time continuum, reflecting the cognitive structure of the novel
and defining its narrative development.
УДК :801 (574)
Мизамхан Б.,
ф.ғ.к., доцент, Абылай хан атындағы ҚазХҚ жҽне ҼТУ,
Алматы, Қазақстан
АУДАРМА ЖӘНЕ ФИЛОЛОГИЯ ФАКУЛЬТЕТІНДЕГІ
ХАЛЫҚАРАЛЫҚ ҚАТЫНАСТАР ЖӘНЕ ҒЫЛЫМ МЕН БІЛІМ БЕРУ
ҤРДІСІНІҢ ӚЗАРА САБАҚТАСТЫҒЫ
Мақалада аударма жҽне филология факультетінде академиялық алмасу мен
халықаралық қатынастардың жүзеге асу нҽтижелері жайлы сҿз болады.
Түйін сөздер: академиялық ұтқырлық, зияткерлік, лингво-мҽдени аспект
Соңғы жылдары қарқынды дамып келе жатқан кҽсіби жҽне
академиялық алмасу үрдісінің ҿсуі, халықаралық қарым-қатынастың
нығаюы шетел тілінде білім беру ісінің одан ҽрі дами түсуіне септігін
тигізді. Осы тұрғыдан алып қарастырар болсақ, шетел тілі қазіргі кезде
мемлекетті дамытудың негізгі кҿздерінің бірі ретінде қоғамның зияткерлік
ҽлеуетін қалыптастырудың басты құралына айналды.
Шетел тілінде білім берудің басты стратегиялық міндеті ретінде
кадрларды дайындауды үлгілеу негізі ретінде шетел тілінде білім беруді
атауға болады [1].
Шетел тілін оқытудың, шетел тілінде білім берудің жолдары, ҽдістері
жҽне тҽсілдері кҿп-ақ: Аудиторияда білім беру, жеке сабақтар арқылы білім
беру, ҿз бетінше оқып үйрену жҽне т.б. Бірақ, солардың ішінде ең ҽсерлісі
жҽне тиімдісі ретінде мен халықаралық қатынастар ісін жолға қою арқылы
шет тілдік білімді жетілдіруді айтар едім. Себебі, ол біздің, мейлі оқытушы
болсын, мейлі студент болсын, фондық білімімізді кҿтеріп қана қоймайды,
сондай-ақ, сол тілде сҿйлейтін адамдармен етене араласу арқылы тілдің қыр-
сырын кеңінен үйренуге де жол ашпақ. Үйреніп жатқан шетел тілі ана тілі
болып келетін адамдармен байланыс сондай-ақ, оқытушылар мен
студенттердің тілді үйренудің лингво-мҽдени аспектілерін жете меңгеріп,
сол тілде академиялық жазбалар жазу (мақалалар, конференцияларға қатысу
жҽне т.б.) дағдысын да нығайта түспек.
Осы тұрғыдан алып қарастырар болсақ, Абылай хан атындағы
ҚазХҚжҼТУ Аударма жҽне филология факультетінде халықаралық
қатынастар жҽне ғылым, білім саласында бірқатар істер атқарылды. Атап
айтар болсақ, шетелдік оқытушыларды оқу үрдісіне тарту, шетелдік
лекторлармен кездесу ұйымдастыру, дҽрістеріне қатысу, оларға да еліміз
жайлы ақпараттар беріп, ұлттық дҽстүрлер мен ҽдет ғұрыптармен
таныстыру, бірлесіп оқу құралдарын жазу жҽне тағы басқа жұмыстар
кеңінен жолға қойылуда.
Атқарылып жатқан жұмыстардың негізгілеріне тоқтала кетер болсақ:
Қазіргі таңда факультетімізде 5 шетелдік оқытушы жұмыс жасайды.
Олар ҿз елдерінің тілін (испан, итальян, поляк) үйретумен қатар, сол елдің
мҽдениетімен жҽне салт-дҽстүрімен студенттерді таныстырады. Соның
нҽтижесінде, «Аударма ісі» мамандығы бойынша білім алып жатқан тҿрт
студентіміз Испания университеттерінде академиялық алмасу бағдарламасы
бойынша тілдік білімдерін жетілдіріп жатса, «Шетел филологиясы»
мамандығын бітірген факультет түлектері Франция, Польша, Болгария
елдері университеттерінде магистатураға оқуға түсті. Сондай-ақ, Чехия,
Словакия, Малайзия, Қытай, Корея университеттерінде академиялық алмасу
бағдарламалары бойынша дҽріс алып жатқан студенттеріміз қайтып келіп, ҿз
тҽжірибелерімен бҿліседі жҽне осы мамандықтардың одан ҽрі дамуына ҿз
үлесін қосады деп үміттенеміз.
Ал, оқытушылар құрамына келсек, тек 2014 жылдың тамыз айы мен
желтоқсан айы аралығында факультетіміздің 15 мұғалімі қысқа мерзімдік
курстар бойынша шетелдерде білімін жетілдіріп келді, шетелде жүргізілген
ҽр түрлі конференцияларға қатысуда, шетелдік журналдарда мақалаларын
бастыруда. Айталық, 2013-2014 оқу жылында 5 мақала Томсон жоғары
импакт фактор журналында жарық кҿрсе (Асанова Г.С., Ешнияз Г.С.,
Розиева Д., Карменбаева Ж., Аскарова Г.К.), 1 мақала (Мизамхан Б.) Индекс
Коперникус кҿрсеткішіне жататын Humanities and Social Sciences Review
журналында басылды, сондай-ақ, жақын шетелдерде (Ресей, Қырғызстан,
Азербайжан жҽне т.б.) де мақалалар кҿптеп басылуда.
Тағы бір айта кетерлігі, қазіргі кезде университетіміздің ректоры,
академик С.С.Құнанбаеваның қолдауымен шетелдік профессорлар да келіп,
дҽріс оқуда. Айталық, АҚШ ЖОО профессоры Лорен Гудман екі апта бойы
факультетіміздің оқытушылар қауымы мен магистрант, студенттеріне арнап
(барлығы 30 адам қатысты) дҽріс оқыды, бірлесіп оқу-ҽдістемелік кешендері
жасалды. Екі апта бойғы жемісті жұмыс жасаудың нҽтижесінде проф.
Л.Гудман, Аударма жҽне МҚ кафедрасының меңгерушісі Г.С. Асанова жҽне
осы кафедраның аға оқытушысы Ш.Саимкулова бірлесіп «Ағылшын
ҽдебиетіндегі ҿлең түрінде берілетін түстерді интерпретациялау» атты оқу
құралын жазды, ол қазір баспаға дайындалуда.
Сондай-ақ, қазақ-орыс ауызша аудару кафедрасының оқытушылары да
Мҽскеу Лингвистикалық университетінің профессорлары И.И.Космарская,
Е.А.Осмининамен ғылыми-оқу-ҽдістемелік байланыстар орнатты, оларды
университеттің қолдауымен шақырып, дҽрісін тыңдады, семинарларына
қатысты.
Ҽрине, тізбектей берсе жасалған мұндай жұмыстар жетіп артылады.
Жоғарыдағыларды ең кҿрнектілері ретінде беріп отырмыз.
Демек, оқу үрдісінде халықаралық қатынастарды бҿліп қарамау керек,
ол мҽдениетаралық біліктілікті қалыптастырудың негізгі құрамдас бҿлігі
ретінде күн тҽртібінде қала беруі қажет ҿзекті мҽселелердің бірі. Осылай
болған жағдайда ғана біз қазіргі заманның талабына сай, жан-жақты білімі
бар, мҽдениетаралық қатысым біліктілігін тереңінен игерген маман
дайындай алмақпыз.
Әдебиет:
Кунанбаева, С.С. Современное иноязычное образование: методология и
теория / С. С. Кунанбаева.- Алматы: [б. и.], 2005.- 264 с.
Мизамхан Б.,
к.ф.н., доцент, казУМоиМЯ имени Абылай хана,
Алматы, Казахстан
Взаимосвязь международного сотрудничество и научно-учебного
процесса на факультете перевода и филологии
В статье рассматривается роль международного сотрудничества в
формировании межкультурной и лингвистической компетенции у студентов.
Mizamkhan B.,
c.ph.sc., associate professor, Kazakh Ablai khan UIR&WL,
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Interrelation of international cooperation and scientific-educational process
on translation and philology department
In this article the author presents the role of International relations in developing
intercultural and linguistic competences among students.
УДК: 81.23
Kazakbaeva R.,
SPEECH AS A MARKER OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
The article discusses the role of speech, the role of education, gender, age
and other factors which facilitate to communicate effectively in society.
Depending on their socioeconomic classes, education, occupation, gender,
and age, individuals‘ different ways of speaking position them in a specific
stratum in the society. This different way of speaking is represented in using
different linguistic features such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary. Through
using different linguistic features, individuals express their similarities and
differences with a particular social group.
Key words: ineraction, identity, community, speech marker
Introduction
When two people, who have never met each other before, happen to be in
one room they start talking on some neutral topics. One explanation for this is that
it can be uncomfortable to be alone in the company of someone and not to speak
to him/her. Another more sensible reason is this is the way that one can get some
clues about his/her companion‘s social background such as education, social class
and occupation which will help him/her to behave appropriately towards the
conversant. Of course sometimes we get some information about other people‘s
social background by guessing from some visual clues (what they are wearing).
However, these visual clues are not always reliable sources to tell us about other
people‘s social backgrounds. We learn about social backgrounds from what
people say and more how they say it. This is because whenever we say something
we give our listener some clues about our origin such as where we are from, age,
socioeconomic class, education, occupation and social roles. These clues enable
our conversant to position us within a specific stratum. In this paper, I will attempt
to show how individuals‘ social characteristics such as socioeconomic class, age
and gender are embedded in their speech.
Speech as a marker of social identity
Language use is one of the most important components that serves as a
marker of individuals‘ identity. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) assert ―we
engage in ‗acts of identity‘ revealing through our use of language both our
personal identity and sense of social and ethnic solidarity and difference‖ (p.
92).They further argue that there are conditions that affect one‘s desire to engage
in acts of identity: we can behave according to the behavioral patterns of groups
with whom we desire to identify. Norton (2000) defines identity as ―how a person
understands his or her own relationship to the world, how that relationship is
constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities
for the future‖ (p.205). Hall also argues ―identity is a narrative of the self; it is the
story we tell about the self in order to know who we are‖ (as cited in Blot, 1989,
p. 19).
Through language we express our social group identification and group
solidarity. In other words, the way we use language manifests our similarities and
differences in a particular society. Therefore, language use (speech) is a primary
resource for enacting social identity and displaying membership of social groups.
According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), social identity has been defined as ―a part
of an individual‘s self-concept which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her
membership of a social group or groups, together with the value and emotional
significance attached to that membership‖ (p. 27). Tajfel‘s and Turner‘s social
identity theory involves three central ideas: categorization, identification and
comparison. (1) We categorize objects in order to understand them; in the same
way we categorize people to understand the social environment. (2) We identify
with groups that we perceive ourselves as belonging to, often thinking "us" vs.
"them" or "we‖ vs. "they.‖ (3) As group members we compare our group with
others, in order to define our group as positive, and therefore by implication, see
ourselves in a positive way. That is, people choose to compare their groups with
other groups in ways that reflect positively on themselves (as cited in Worchel and
Austin, 1986, p. 42).
According to Social Identity Theory, a person has not one ―personal self‖
but several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. It
means apart from the ―level of self,‖ an individual has multiple ―social identities.‖
In other words, individuals might have several layers of social identities
depending on different social contexts and these different social identities are
derived from their perceived membership in a particular social group (Hogg&
Vaughan, 2002, p. 65).
Identity is a multilayered and changeable process, and individuals‘
language use might change accordingly as their identity changes. Depending on
with whom they are talking and where the interaction is taking place, individuals
adjust their speech in order to place themselves in particular communities of
practice. In other words, depending on their various memberships in various
communities their interaction patterns vary. According to Eckert and McConnel-
Ginet (1992), communities of practice are defined as ―an aggregate of people who
come together around mutual engagement in some common endeavor. Ways of
doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations- in short practice –
emerge in the course of their joint activity around that endeavor‖ ( as cited in
Coulmas, 1997, p. 95). However, within one community of practice each member
of the community develops a unique individual identity. For instance, as a female
member of the society, I stick to an accepted rule of interactions characteristic of
the community with which I interact. However, I differ from other female
members of the community in terms of word choice, interaction patterns, and
behavior. This is explained by my individual identity, which includes occupation,
age, and socioeconomic status. Therefore, the concept that all members of a
particular community are similar in their interaction patterns limits the
appreciation of diversity within one community.
Kroskrity (1999) provides us with a definition of identity conjoined with
language: ―identity is defined as the linguistic construction of membership in one
or more social groups or categories‖ (p.111). If identity is a social construct based
on social interaction, then language, as a medium for interaction, is very important
in shaping individuals‘ identity.
Identity and language use (speech) are linked because through speech
individuals manifest their places among various social types, i.e., we reveal our
belonginess to a particular group and distinguish ourselves from others. According
to cultural historian Burke (1993) ―speaking the same language, or variety of
language, as someone else is a simple way of indicating solidarity; speaking a
different language or variety of language is an equally effective way of
distinguishing oneself from other individuals or groups‖
(p. 70).
A single feature of language sometimes can serve as a tool for including or
excluding someone from the group. For instance, as Tabouret-Keller (1997)
described how Gileadites detected their enemies, Ephraim, who attempted to
disguise themselves as Gileadites by just asking them to pronounce the Hebrew
word ―shibboleth.‖ If Ephraim pronounced ―sibboleth,‖ Gileadites seized and
killed them (p. 107). Probably in Ephraim‘s language there was not a sound [ ]
that would correspond to the Gileadites sound [ ] , and it was very difficult for
them to pronounce this sound. Of course this is a gruesome, and perhaps, unwise
way of differentiating one‘s identity, but it highlights the importance of language
use in establishing one‘s identity.
Speech as a marker of socioeconomic class
The degrees of access to material resources, to education and to power,
distinguish people from each other and classify them into socioeconomic groups.
These classifications into social classes affect individuals‘ ways of living which,
in turn, impacts the ways people use the language. Depending on their
socioeconomic class people tend to have characteristic ways of speaking and these
different ways of speaking help to mark the differences of one group from
another. Individuals use a certain language to show their solidarity and difference
in a particular group. An individual may be similar in language use to people from
the same social group in a different area than to people from different social group
in the same area. Barber (1957) points out, in his text Social Stratification, how
vital language was as an indicator of socioeconomic status in various countries.
He provides the example of India where the ability to use written language had
long been a symbol of Brahman caste membership. Another example is in
nineteenth century Russia, the upper class spoke French to differentiate
themselves from the lower class. These examples show how individuals expressed
their socioeconomic status through language use. Given such importance of
language use, what linguistic features can serve as a marker to differentiate
speaker‘s socioeconomic identity?
Every language has some linguistic features that reflect social
characteristics of the speaker, of the addressee or of the relation between them.
These linguistic features include phonetic, lexical, and grammatical features that
individuals use in their speech in order to claim their belonginess to a particular
group or differentiate themselves from others. In other words, individuals show
their social class belonginess through using different linguistic features such as
pronunciation, vocabulary and sentence structures.
Classification into socioeconomic classes at the level of pronunciation is
very well represented in William Labov‘s (1966) sociolinguistic study of New
York City department stores: Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy‘s, and S. Klein. Each
store, depending on its rank served different customers: Saks Fifth Avenue served
high class, Macy‘s the middle, and S.Klein the lower class.
Labov examined the differential use of [r] by salespersons, hypothesizing
that salespersons to some extent represent the rank of the stores. According to his
hypothesis, salespersons in highest-ranked store would have highest of [ r] ; those
in the middle-ranked would have intermediate values of [r]; and those in the
lowest-ranked store would have the lowest value of [r]. The method he used to
collect data was very simple. He walked around three stores asking salespersons
where some goods were. In fact, he chose the goods which were on the fourth
floor; he knew that the salesperson‘s answer would be ―on the fourth floor.‖ By
selecting words fourth and floor he wanted to test the hypothesis about the
influence of socioeconomic status on the differential use of [r]. The analysis of
the notes he made confirmed that the use of [r] decreased from high to low-status
store.
The evidence presented in this study also indicated that individuals‘
occupation is closely correlated with their linguistic behavior. Maybe the
salespersons did not belong to a high socioeconomic class themselves, but they
might have borrowed more prestigious forms from their customers, or at least
tried to make an effort in that direction.
The differential usage of grammatical categories and constructions
correlates with socioeconomic class as well. The use of standard or non- standard
grammatical forms usually function as social markers which tells us, the listeners,
the socioeconomic class of an individual or at least the desire of an individual to
make efforts to be identified with a particular group. Usually the use of standard
norms is likely to be found in the speech of the dominant mainstream group,
whereas use of non- standard forms is more likely to be found where speakers
conform more closely to vernacular norms. As Labov (1972) argued ―the use of
non-standard features is controlled by the norms of the vernacular subcultures,
whilst the use of standard norms is controlled by the overt norms of mainstream
culture in society‖ (p. 187). Many studies conducted to establish whether
individuals‘ use of standard or non-standard grammatical forms is related to their
socioeconomic class have revealed that use of certain grammatical forms is
correlated with their socioeconomic class. For instance, use of multiple negations
( I don’t want none vs I don’t want any) or adding -s- to first person singular in the
present tense forms ( I asks) correlates very closely with the speakers‘ adherence
to the norms of vernacular culture. Here, I would like to point out that the use of
non-standard linguistic forms does not always correlate with the speakers‘ social
class but sometimes it correlates with an individuals desire to conform to be
identified with particular group. Cheshire (1997) conducted a study in order to see
whether the use of non-standard morphological and syntactic features by
adolescents in the town of Reading, in Berkshire, was correlated with their social
class. The results of the analysis of adolescents‘ speeches showed that the
adolescents who were immersed in the vernacular culture tended to use more non-
standard forms such as multiple-negation, present suffix with non-third-person
singular, was with plural subjects, ain’t for negative present tense forms of be
with all subjects, etc., than the adolescents who were occasionally involved in the
vernacular culture.
The usage of lexical (vocabulary) features is also one of the features where
speech can act as a social marker. Of course, the bulk of the vocabulary of any
language is shared by all its speakers, but there are certain types of vocabulary
which is restricted only to the speech of certain groups. The usage of this certain
vocabulary functions as sign of membership in a particular social group. Using
specific vocabulary, individuals show their solidarity with or differences from
particular groups. For instance, slang used by certain groups also is aimed to show
their group solidarity and exclude outsiders.
Speech markers of age
Speech can mark stages of age throughout the total life-span – from
infancy to old age. People use different linguistic features in different stages of
their lives. Age as a social category is reflected in individuals‘ speech behaviors.
Individuals use specific linguistic features in their speeches with a particular stage
of life. These specific linguistic features give cues about the individuals‘ age and
they include phonological, syntactic and semantic features.
Some people might think that speech markers of age are not very important
in face-to-face interactions, because there are other cues such as appearance which
is more obvious indicator of age. However, the significance of speech cues will be
very helpful in situations where the participants of the interaction cannot see each
other, e.g. in telephone conversations. In such situations, the voice of a person is
one of the channels to guess about an individuals‘ age. As we know, when a
person ages his/her voice changes as well. When we cannot see the person with
whom we are talking or meet someone who looks younger than his/her age, we
can guess about an individuals‘ age by the quality of his voice. For instance,
when boys reach puberty, it affects their voices. It becomes more ―husky,‖
whereas ―old‖ age is marked by ―hollow‖, ―weak,‖ and ―breathy‖ voice quality.
So, these kind phonological characteristics carry valuable information about an
individual‘s age.
In most societies, age is an important category for social interaction and
social organization, especially in hierarchical societies. Since age, as a social
category, plays an important role in family and social groups, in social interactions
it is reflected in individuals‘ speech behaviors. Speech markers of age are very
important in social interactions in hierarchical societies in which individuals‘
speech contains some linguistic features which are associated with a particular
stage of life. For instance, in all Turkic group of languages, including Kazakh,
people are expected to use some linguistic features which are appropriate for their
ages. By using certain linguistic features they give some cues to their listeners
about their age. Therefore, appropriate usage of age-related linguistic features is
very important in social interactions. If a young person uses a certain vocabulary
which can be used only by elderly members of the community, it leads either to
ridicule or condemnation by the society. Another age related linguistic feature to
show how speech and age are related in Kazakh is expressed in the usage of
certain vocabulary. For instance, English terms of kinship such as sister, brother,
brother- in- law, sister-in law, in Kyrgyz, depending on the age of a person,
requires different words. For my older brother, I am karyndas whereas for my
older sister I am sinli, but for my younger brothers and sisters I am akpe . For me,
my older sister‘s husband is jezde while my younger sister‘s husband is kuieu-
bala. The same with sister- in- law: my older brother‘s wife is jenge, whereas my
younger (meaning my brother who is younger than me) brother‘s wife is kelin.
In some languages, for instance in all Turkish languages, including Kazkh,
the age –related linguistic features are expressed in using different pronouns and
verb forms depending on the interlocutors‘ age. In Kazakh, Siz Maratty kordiniz
be? and Sen Maratty kordin be? which are translated into English as Did you see
Marat? In these sentences pronouns siz and sen stand for English you but the
former is used only when the addressee is older than the addresser. Kordiniz and
kordin mean see but kordiniz requires the age –related suffix niz, the usage of
which shows the age difference between the speakers.
Do men and women speak the same way?
Gender is one of the interesting social features that presents an individual‘s
social identity, because gender differentiation affects the way people interact in
social contexts. This differentiation in the ways of interaction is defined by the
differential roles, norms, and expectations imposed on individuals as a result of
their biological differences as men and women. These social norms, in turn,
constitute gender as a social construct. Wodak and Benke (1997) state that many
studies devoted to the analysis of gender and language use have neglected the
―context of language behavior‖ and have often approached gender by just looking
at the speakers‘ biological sex. Instead Wodak and Benke propose a context-
sensitive approach which regards ―gender as a social construct.‖ They argue that
the results of the studies on gender and language could be objective if the
researchers approach ―sex as biological differences between men and women;
whereas gender is ―the psychological, social and cultural differences between
males and females‖ (p. 128).
The gender identity of individuals develops in differential forms of
participation in communities of practice. Women and men have very different
forms of participation in social interaction. The differential forms of participation
in social interaction is explained by the social roles and statuses that men and
women have in various societies. In some cultures women are expected to be
subordinate to their husbands and this subordination defines the ways women
participate in social interaction. In other words, depending on their social roles,
women choose a particular language which is appropriate for societal norms of
interaction in a given society.
As in the speech markers of age, one might think that outer appearances
(man and woman) also can provide us with cues about the individuals‘ gender
identity. Certainly, the physical appearance is one of the reliable sources to
distinguish individuals‘ gender identity. However, knowing the differences
between the language use between men and women might be useful in order to
avoid some embarrassing and uncomfortable situations, especially for a person
who is not from the same culture.
Not only physical appearance but the use of certain linguistic features, such
as pronunciation, grammar, speech styles and vocabulary by men and women can
help us to better understand the complex question of the individuals‘ gender-
related identities. The studies devoted to the exploration of the differences
between men and women have revealed that women tend to employ more socially
prestigious speech than men.
Labov (1972) conducted sociolinguistic interviews to analyze the role of
gender as sociolinguistic phenomena. The analysis of the interviews revealed that
women preferred standard norms in all linguistic features such as phonology,
grammar and lexis. He explained the reason why women favored the use of
socially prestigious speech by arguing that women chose prestigious speech
because of their values of a way of speaking for upward social mobility. (p. 69).
However, women‘s preference to use more standard forms is not always caused
by their values of upward social mobility, but by their other social roles in the
society as well. For instance, Saint-Pierre (1972), in a study of language use in the
community of Trinite, in Martinique, found that women generally are more
inclined to avoid Creole than are men because women speak more often than men
to young children to whom they have responsibility of modeling the language (p.
209). Trudgill (1972) in his Norwich study found that women, in terms of
language use, are overwhelmingly conservative, whereas men showed flexibility
(change) in their linguistic choice. He, therefore, argued that women and men
responded to opposed sets of norms: women to standard-language prestige norms
and men to vernacular prestige norms. On the basis of his findings, Trudgill
concluded that women‘s prestige-driven linguistic choice was the result of their
powerless position in the society. Women chose prestige norms in order to
compensate for their powerless position in the society by developing linguistic
strategy for upward mobility (p. 182). However, in modern societies, especially in
western societies, Trudgill‘s conclusions might be contradictory and outdated
because in current societies where women have been moving into marketplace the
gender roles of men and women have changed. This, in turn, has changed the
gender –related linguistic choice by men and women.
Variations in linguistic choice between males and females are not only
expressed in the social roles of genders in societies, but in some languages they
are also expressed by linguistic features that are already embedded in language
structures. For instance, in the Russian language, the gender differentiation
features are presented in grammar and vocabulary. The examples of such
linguistic features are gender conjugations of verbs and adjectives. Adjectives and
predicates take affixes so as to agree in gender with the subject of the sentences.
For instance, On khodil means He went whereas she went is Ona khodila. Here,
first of all, the pronouns for male and female are different ( on –he; ona-she).
Secondly, adding the affix a for female serves as a differentiation marker between
male and female speeches.
Another linguistic feature such as phonology might serve as a salient
marker in men‘s and women‘s speeches. Several empirical studies devoted to
examining the differences of women‘s and men‘s speech in phonological level
reported that women and men use different intonation patterns in their speech. For
instance, Pellow and Jones, (1978) based on the results of their studies in their
studies in England, state ― men use a much greater proportion of falling tones
than rising tones, while women generally realize more rising tones‖ (p. 125).
Elyan‘s (1978) analysis of twenty female and twenty male students in Bristol also
confirmed these results. Something similar happens in the Kyrgyz language where
the intonation patterns and vocabulary use also serve as salient male and female
speech differences. For instance, for the English word of surprise and exclamation
―wow,‖ Kyrgyz females and males use different words. Females use eiii and males
use oooo. This differentiation of use exclamation is not only expressed in the word
choice but also in phonological level. Females express their surprise with the
rising tone whereas males use falling tone. Here, I would like to point out that
even though tone is rarely salient feature in the Kyrgyz language, it is very
important in gender-related linguistic choice.
Conclusion
Speech is a badge of identity. Whenever we open our mouths to speak we
provide those who hear us with data that tells them about our social identities.
Therefore, language use is a very important factor in conveying information about
the speaker‘s social background such as socioeconomic class, gender and age.
Depending on their socioeconomic classes, education, occupation, gender,
and age, individuals‘ different ways of speaking position them in a specific
stratum in the society. This different way of speaking is represented in using
different linguistic features such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, etc.
Through using different linguistic features, individuals express their similarities
and differences with a particular social group. However, it is not true that all
members of one social group speak the same. Individuals modify their speeches
according to where and with whom they interact or their feelings towards their
interlocutors. It means that they alternate or choose different ways of speaking in
different situations that carry different social meanings.
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |