Unit 2. Modern Language Theories
Lessons 13 - 14. Language and Cross-cultural Communication
1. Notation "cross-culture communication". 2. Notation "language person". 3. Gender stereotype of language person. 4. Women's language and men's language. 5. Aspects of Gender linguistics investigations.
1. Notation "cross-culture communication"
The development of pragmatics tends to rise many new language theories and aspects of language learning. Every following phase of learning pragmatic phenomena made known problems must be researched. By this way there have been appeared the theory of communication and within it the theory of cross-cultural communication, gender linguistics, linguistic conflictology, juridical linguistics and another ones.
The main tenets of the theory ofcross-cultural communication are represented in the course "The bases of the language communication theory" which you had studied before. Repeat them and tell in English.
2. Notation "language person"
It is known that subject of communication is language person. The notation "language person" is interpreted as aggregate of language features of person, which implies national, social and individual peculiarities. It is interesting that social stereotypes of language person attract attention of the scientists all the most, but are learning not enough. Particularity of language person depends on many respects. They are: respect to historical period; to social status of person; to age; to education; to profession; to way of life; to hobby; to psychological type of person; to gender and etc.
3. Gender stereotype of language person
All of cross-cultural communication problems are topical now but the object of particular interesting of scientists is gender linguistics. Scientists have carried out that there are two kinds of human essential distinctness: biology (sex) and social-culture - gender. Biology kind - is the aggregate of anatomic and physiological features and social one is the aggregate of social rules, values and reactions being characteristic of person. All of nations have gender consciousness which is constructed and kept by the existing of social and culture stereotypes of behavior. Gender models of behavior are directed by national traditions and society.
The notation "gender" implies not only women features but men and women as features of social person.
4. Women's language and men's language. 5. Aspects of Gender linguistics investigations.
Read the fragments of English and Russian papers devoted to the problems of language gender and prepare for discussion about the questions of gender linguistics.
1) Linguistics 001 Lecture 15: Language and Gender
Women's language and men's language
Sometimes, there are very clear differences between the forms of language typically used by women and those typically used by men.
For instance, here are a few of the many cases where Japanese men and women traditionally use different lexical items to express the same meaning (examples from Janet Shibamoto, The Womanly Woman, in Philips et al., Eds., "Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective"):
| Men's form | Women's form | Gloss |
| hara | onaka | stomach |
| tukemono | okookoo | pickles |
| mizu | ohiya | water |
| bentoo | obentoo | box lunch |
| kane | okane | money |
| hasi | ohasi | chopsticks |
| umai | oisii | delicious |
| kuu | taberu | eat |
| kutabaru/sinu | nakanaru | die |
It is not an accident that all the traditionally "female" nouns have the polite or honorific prefix /o-/; this is one of many ways in which Japanese female speech has been characterised as being more polite than male speech. These days, many younger Japanese women would no longer choose to use the specific female forms.
Culture /gender/ language
When we look at the linguistic behavior of men and women across languages, cultures and circumstances, we will find many specific differences. Quite a few languages show lexical and morphological differences like those exemplified above for Japanese. In some Native American languages, grammatical forms of verbs are inflected differently according to the sex of the speaker. Examples from the Muskogean language Koasati are given below:
| Women's form | Men's form | English gloss |
| lakaw | lakaws | he is lifting it |
| lakawwitak | lakawwitaks | let me lift it |
| mol | mols | he is peeling it |
| i:p | i:ps | he is eating it |
| tacilw | tacilws | you are singing |
However, explicit and categorical grammatical and or even lexical marking of speaker gender is not the norm. Instead, we usually find differences in the frequency of certain things (words, or pronunciations, or constructions, or intonations, or whatever), especially when the circumstances of utterance are taken into account.
It has often been observed that (other things equal) female speech tends to be evaluated as more "correct" or more "prestigious", less slangy, etc. Men are more likely than women to use socially-stigmatised forms (like "ain't" or g-dropping in English). On the other hand, women are usually in the lead in changes in pronunciation, typically producing new pronunciations sooner, more often, and in more extreme ways than men.
A number of stylistic differences between female and male speech have been observed or claimed. Women's speech has been said to be more polite, more redundant, more formal, more clearly pronounced, and more elaborated or complex, while men's speech is less polite, more elliptical, more informal, less clearly pronounced, and simpler.
In terms of conversational patterns, it has been observed or claimed that women use more verbal "support indicators" (like mm-hmm) than men do; that men interrupt women more than they interrupt other men, and more than women interrupt either men or other women; that women express uncertainty and hesitancy more than men; and that (at least in single-sex interactions) males are more likely to give direct orders than females are.
For nearly all of these issues of stylistic and conversational differences, there are some contradictory findings, and it seems that one must look closely at the nature of the circumstances in order to predict how men and women will behave verbally.
Nevertheless, it is clear that in many circumstances, women and men tend to use language differently.
Within the domain of culture, two broad classes of explanations for such gender effects have been offered: difference theories and dominance theories.
According to difference theories (sometimes called two-culture theories), men and women inhabit different cultural (and therefore linguistic) worlds. To quote from the preface to Deborah Tannen's 1990 popularisation You just don't understand, "boys and girls grow up in what are essentially different cultures, so talk between women and men is cross-cultural communication."
According to dominance theories, men and women inhabit the same cultural and linguistic world, in which power and status are distributed unequally, and are expressed by linguistic as well as other cultural markers. In principle, women and men have access to the same set of linguistic and conversational devices, and use them for the same purposes. Apparent differences in usage reflect differences in status and in goals.
The general consensus is that both sorts of explanations are appropriate to some degree, but the discussion is sometimes acrimonious and political. For instance, Tannen has been criticised by some feminist writers as a "deeply reactionary" "apologist for men", who "repeatedly excuses their insensitivities in her examples and justifies their outright rudeness as merely being part of their need for independence." Those who criticise Tannen in this way argue that the behaviour of the men in her examples reflects a desire for domination rather than a different set of cultural norms.
Research results or stereotypes?
What does the two-culture theory say? The basic ideas go back at least to the early 1980's, beginning with John Gumperz's research on misunderstandings in intercultural communication involving immigrants, and Marjorie Goodwin's studies of conversational interaction among African-American children in Philadelphia. The most influential recent exponent of the theory has been Deborah Tannen.
In Tannen's version, women use language to achieve intimacy, resulting in what she calls "rapport talk." For women, "talk is the glue that holds relationships together," and so conversations are "negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus." Men, on the other hand, use language to convey information, resulting in what Tannen calls "report talk." Because men maintain relationships through other activities, conversation for them becomes a negotiation for status in which each participant attempts to establish or improve his place in a hierarchical social order.
Is this true? Many people have criticised Tannen's ideas as social stereotypes, based on overgeneralization of limited research findings, or on anecdotes. For example, Alice Freed writes (in the Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference)
The anecdotal nature of much of the material that Tannen provides emerges as still another area of weakness in her work. She uses her stories as a basis for sweeping generalizations, claiming, for example, that men but not women offer advice when others are seeking what Tannen calls understanding and that men but not women provide unrequested information in response to questions.
It is difficult to test the broadest generalizations offered -- those about "rapport" vs. "report" for example -- but many more specific claims can be and have been tested over the past 20 years or so of research. Predicted differences are sometimes found but sometimes are not. Linguistic behavior is influenced by many other factors-- age, class, ethnicity, social setting, and individual personality -- and gender effects interact with other factors in complex and interesting ways.
A case study: use of tag questions
Tag questions are grammatical structures in in which a declarative is followed by an attached interrogative clause or 'tag', such as
1. You were missing last week, weren't you?
2. Thorpe's away, is he?
In her influential (1975) work Language and Women's Place, Robin Lakoff depicted a typical female speech style, allegedly characterized by the use of features such as hesitations, qualifiers, tag questions, empty adjectives, and other properties, which she asserted to have a common function: to weaken or mitigate the force of an utterance. Thus tag questions "are associated with a desire for confirmation or approval which signals a lack of self-confidence in the speaker."
Lakoff's description of female speech style was based on her remembered impressions rather than on any systematic, quantitative observation. When subsequent researchers went out and counted things, they often found it difficult to confirm her observations. For instance, some studies found that men actually used more tag questions than women did.
Thus Cameron et al. (1988) looked at tag questions in a 45,000 word sample from a British corpus of transcribed conversations, called the "Survey of English Usage" (SEU). There were nine sections of 5,000 words each; three of all-male conversation, three of all-female conversation, and three of mixed-sex conversation. In this corpus, there were 60 tag questions used by men, and only 36 by women. This is a significant sex difference, but in the opposite direction!
When they looked more closely at the function of the tag questions in this corpus, a further sex difference appeared -- which on closer examination seems not primarily to be a sex difference at all.
Holmes (1984) distinguishes two functions of tag questions: modal vs. affective. Modal tags "request information or confirmation of information of which the speaker is uncertain":
But you've been in Reading longer than that, haven't you?
Affective tags "are used not to signal uncertainty on the part of the speaker, but to indicate concern for the addressee":
1. Open the door for me, could you?
2. His portraits are quite static by comparison, aren't they?
Affective tags are further subdivided into two kinds: softeners like the first example above, which conventionally mitigate the force of what would otherwise be an impolite demand, and facilitative tags like the second example, which invite the listener to take a conversational turn to comment on the speaker's assertion.
When the tag data in the SEU study are categorized in this way, it turns out that in the category of modal tags -- that is, the tags that genuinely express uncertainty -- are much more likely to be used by men, while the affective tags are only somewhat more likely to be used by men:
| Females | Males | |
| Modal tags | 9 (25%) | 24 (40%) |
| Affective tags | 27 (75%) | 36 (60%) |
| Total tags |
Suspecting that something besides sex/gender was involved here, the authors of this study turned their attention to another corpus. This database consisted of nine hours' recorded unscripted talk from three broadcast settings: a medical radio phone-in where the participant roles were ... doctor and caller/client; classroom interaction recorded for ... educational TV, in which the salient roles were those of teacher and pupil; and a general TV discussion programme, in which the roles were ... presenter and audience.
In each case, one of the participants can be identified as "powerful" -- "institutionally responsible for the conduct of the talk", and typically also endowed with greater social power and status in the context of the conversations -- doctor vs. patient, teacher vs. student. The data was sampled so that men and women were equally represented in the "powerful" and "powerless" roles. All tag questions were identified and classified according to Holmes' categories. The results:
| Women | Men | |||
| Powerful | Powerless | Powerful | Powerless | |
| Modal tags | 3 (5%) | 9 (15%) | 10 (18%) | 16 (29%) |
| Affective tags (facilitative) | 43 (70%) | 25 (45%) | ||
| Affective tags (softeners) | 6 (10%) | 4 (7%) |
First, in this database -- unlike in the SEU data -- there is no significant overall difference in tag usage between the sexes.
Second, men continue to use modal tags relatively more often, and affective tags relatively less often.
The most striking difference by far, however, is not the sex/gender effect but the power effect: it is only the people who are in charge of the conversations -- the "powerful" speakers -- who use affective tags.
2) Леонтьев В. В. Женские комплименты в английской лингвокультуре
Выходные данные: Леонтьев В.В. Женские комплименты в английской лингвокультуре // Вестник ВолГУ. Сер.2: Языкознание. Вып.1. 2001. С. 118-123.
В лингвистических работах последнего десятилетия все большее внимание уделяется гендерным исследованиям. Данным термином обозначаются исследования, изучающие культурные, социальные, языковые факторы, определяющие не только отношение социума к мужчинам и женщинам, но и речевое поведение носителей языка в связи с их принадлежностью к тому или иному полу, а также стереотипные представления о мужских и женских качествах (1).
Изучение гендерного аспекта речевого поведения коммуникантов имеет большое значение в лингвистике потому, что его учет позволяет лингвистам глубже проникнуть в женскую или мужскую картину мира, и, таким образом, полнее понять реально существующие модели ориентирующего поведения мужчин и женщин, а также специфику мужской и женской речевых стратегий и тактик.
Объектом данной статьи выступает этикетное высказывание комплимента в английской лингвокультуре, чьим адресантом является женщина, а адресатом (адресатами) как мужчина (мужчины), так и женщина (женщины). Предметом данной статьи является коммуникативная тактика адресантов-женщин.
В дальнейшем мы будем исходить из следующих теоретических положений:
а) коммуникативная (речевая) тактика это совокупность практических ходов в реальном процессе речевого взаимодействия . Она способствует реализации коммуникативной (речевой стратегии) (2) и всегда соотнесена с набором имеющихся у коммуникантов коммуникативных намерений или задач (3);
б) коммуникативная (речевая) стратегия это совокупность запланированных заранее и реализуемых в ходе коммуникативного акта теоретических ходов, направленных на достижение коммуникативной цели . Она соотнесена с коммуникативной целью, а не с интенциями (4). В ряде работ отмечается, что коммуникативная (речевая) стратегия (сверхзадача) универсальна, она в принципе не может обладать национальной спецификой, а коммуникативная (речевая) тактика всегда производна от национальной культуры и своеобразна в различных этнокультурно-языковых общностях (5);
в) комплимент это этикетное высказывание, вербально представляющее собой в высшей степени структурированную формулу, которая может быть с минимальными усилиями применена во множестве ситуаций, требующих одобрительного комментария (толкования) (6) (перевод наш - В. Л.);
г) основная функция комплиментов в речи заключается в создании или поддержании солидарности между адресантом и адресатом (7). Роль комплиментов в западных культурах (особенно в американской) столь велика, что они были образно, но очень точно названы смазочным материалом для общества ( social lubricant ) (8).
д) комплимент представляет собой двусоставное речевое действие вида: комплимент (реплика-стимул) - ответ на комплимент (реплика-реакция) (9)
Общая коммуникативная стратегия адресантов комплиментов в английской лингвокультуре может быть описана как стратегия зарождения или развития уже имеющихся личных контактов с адресатами, стратегия консолидации солидарности с адресатами (10), или, другими словами, стратегия создания и поддержания взаимопонимания и согласия с адресатами (11). Именно различное отношение мужчин и женщин к комплиментам в западных социумах (о чем речь ниже) приводит к стратегическим, а, следовательно, и тактическим различиям женских комплиментов в адрес разнополых собеседников.
Возможность четкого противопоставления мужских и женских комплиментов объясняется давно признанным западными социолингвистами теоретическим положением о том, что мужчины и женщины по-разному ведут себя в коммуникативных ситуациях.
Коммуникативное поведение женщин может быть в целом охарактеризовано как ориентированное на установление контактов с собеседником и кооперативное (affiliative and cooperative), в отличие от коммуникативного поведения мужчин, характеризуемого как соревновательное и ориентированное на контроль (competitive and control-oriented) (12). Если говорить о целостном вкладе женщин в процесс интеракции, то этот вклад может быть описан как ориентированный на другого (other-oriented) (13).
Подобные различия в коммуникативном поведении мужчин и женщин является причиной их различного отношения к комплиментам. Исходя из положений теории вежливости П. Браун и С. Левинсона (14), можно сказать, что женщины относятся к комплиментам как к высказываниям позитивной вежливости (т.е., высказываниям, демонстрирующим единство и солидарность), а для мужчин комплименты это высказывания негативной вежливости, (т.е., к высказывания, предоставляющие свободу действий)...
Вопрос о том, кто кому (мужчины женщинам, женщины мужчинам, или представители одного пола при общении друг с другом) чаще говорят комплименты в западных социумах давно нашел свое решение в ряде социолингвистических работ. По мнению Н. Вольфсон, Дж. Мэйнс, Дж. Холмс и Д.Ф. Браун в роли как адресантов, так и адресатов комплиментов чаще выступают женщины. При этом наиболее частотны комплименты женщин женщинам, далее по степени убывания частотности следуют комплименты женщин мужчинам, комплименты мужчин женщинам. Наименее малочисленны комплименты мужчин мужчинам.
Причина «женского приоритета» в комплиментах заключается в том, что комплименты в их адрес должны постоянно напоминать им о необходимости вести себя в соответствии с социально одобренными нормами. Малое количество комплиментов в адрес мужчин (особенно от других мужчин) объясняется тем, что мужское социальное поведение рассматривается как нормативное, не требующее комментариев или иных суждений (17)...
Фактор адресата в комплиментах вообще и в женских комплиментах, в частности, важен с точки зрения возможной реакции адресата. Адресаты комплиментов в английской лингвокультуре могут принять или отклонить их, переадресовать их адресантам, проигнорировать и т.д. Отмечается, что в повседневном дискурсе можно выделить 11 реакций адресатов на комплименты, начиная от их безапелляционного принятия до их полного игнорирования адресатами (18).
Применяемые женщинами-адресантами комплиментов языковые единицы весьма немногочисленны, что лишь подтверждает формульный характер комплимента как этикетного речевого жанра
Согласно нашим данным, к основным синтаксическим единицам комплиментов в английской лингвокультуре относятся (более 74 % всех данных) формульные структуры you + be + adjective (noun), you + verb + adverb (noun), you + look + adjective (noun), you + have + adjective + noun, I love (like) + your + adjective + noun (частотность употребления названных единиц колеблется от 50, 04 % до 1, 47 %). Причем самой распространенной структурой (50, 04 %) является you + to be + adjective (noun)...
Среди многочисленных лексем, применяемых женщинами в комплиментах, можно выделить лексемы, в равной мере применяемые мужчинами и женщинами (good, beautiful, nice, kind, wonderful), а также лексемы с «женским ярлыком» (adorable, charming, sweet, lovely, divine)... К очень распространенным лексемам в женских комплиментах относятся прилагательные, lovely, great. Каждая из них встречается в более чем 3,5 % полученных данных. В то же время, самой частотной лексемой в женских комплиментах является общеоценочный предикат good, зафиксированный нами в 17 % корпуса примеров.
Итак, вовсе не претендуя на безаппеляционность наших выводов, мы считаем, что коммуникативная тактика женщин-адресантов комплиментов в английской лингвокультуре характеризуется рядом особенностей: а) при общении с представителями разного пола женщины не могут не обращать внимания на существенные различия в отношении мужчин и женщин к комплиментам; б) выбор приоритетных тем женских комплиментов в адрес мужчин и женщин зависит от различного отношения разнополых адресатов к языку как средству коммуникации; в) при вербализации комплиментов женщинам часто приходится учитывать социальный и возрастной статус адресатов, степень своего знакомства с ними, а также формальный или неформальный характер общения; г) гарантирующим коммуникативный успех тактическим шагом для адресантов женских комплиментов можно считать применение в речи своеобразных клишированных формул, а также не слишком длинных синтаксических конструкций и ограниченного набора лексем, легко узнаваемых адресатами в ходе коммуникации, и не позволяющих им заподозрить женщин-адресантов в неискренности.
ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ
1. Ольшанский И.Г. Рецензия на книгу А.В. Кирилиной «Гендер: лингвистические аспекты» // Филологические науки. - 2000.- № 3.- С. 133.
2. Иссерс О.С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. Омск: Изд-во Омского гос. ун-та, 1999. С. 111.
3. Клюев Е.В. Речевая коммуникация: Учебное пособие для универ- ситетов и вузов. М.: Изд-во ПРИОР , 1998. С. 11.
4. Там же. С. 11.
5. Верещагин Е.М., Костомаров В.Г. Приметы времени и места в идиоматике речемыслительной деятельности // Язык: система и функционирование. М., 1988. С. 55; Верещагин Е.М., Ратмайр Р., Ройтер Т. Речевые тактики «призыва к откровенности». Еще одна попытка проникнуть в идиоматику речевого поведения и русско-немецкий контрастивный подход // Вопросы языкознания. 1992. № 6. С. 87.
6. Manes J., N. Wolfson. The compliment formula // Conversational routine. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1981. P. 123.
7. Wolfson N., Manes J. The compliment as a social strategy // Papers in Linguistics. 1980. Vol.13. № 3.
8. Wolfson N. An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English // Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, London: Newbury House Publishers, 1983. P. 86.
9. Карасик В.И. Язык социального статуса. М.: Институт языкознания РАН, Волгоградский педагогический институт, 1992. C. 124; Herbert R.K. Sex-based differences in compliment behavior // Language in Society. 1990. Vol.19. № 2. P. 201-202; Herbert R.K., H.S. Straight. Compliment-rejection versus compliment-avoidance: listener-based versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies // Language and communication. 1989. Vol. 9. № 1. P.37.
10. Holmes J. Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy // Journal of Pragmatics. 1988. Vol.12. № 4. P. 447.
11. Wolfson N. Op. cit. P. 86.
12. Cameron D. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: MacMillan, 1985; Smith P. Language, the Sexes and Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1985.
13. Holmes J. Op. cit. P. 451.
14. Brown P., S. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 (2^nd ed.).
15. Wolfson N. Pretty is as Pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles // Applied linguistics. 1984. Vol.5. № 3. P. 241; Wolfson N. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOl. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers, 1989. P. 172.
16. Holmes J. Op. cit. P. 449-452.
17. Wolfson N. Pretty is as Pretty does. P. 241-243; Holmes J. Op. cit. P. 452; Holmes J., D.F. Brown. Teachers and students learning about compliments // TESOL Quaterly. 1987. Vol.21. № 3. P. 533.
18. Herbert R.K. Op. cit. P. 210.
Questions for discussion
1. What do you think about necessity learning gender problems and gender linguistics ones? Ground your answer.
2. What kinds of gender differences did you watch yourself?
3. How do you take into account gender factors in your communication?
4. What problems of communication on the whole and gender communication in particular must be learning in your opinion?
Tasks
1. Read the fragment of English and Ukrainian story. Describe language persons in it.
2. Analyse of English and Ukrainian texts and find out gender particularities in language behaviour.
W. COLLINS
A MAD MARRIAGE
III
"Mr. Cameron," I said, "will you make allowances for a weak woman? And will you tell me something that I am dying to know?"
He walked straight into the trap, with that entire absence of ready wit, or small suspicion (I leave you to choose the right phrase), which is so much like men, and so little like women.
"Of course I will," he answered.
"Then tell me," I asked, "why you always insist on leaving us at nine o'clock?"
He startled and looked at me so sadly, so reproachfully, that I would have given everything I possessed to recall the rash words, which had just passed my lips.
"If I consent to tell you," he replied, after a momentary struggle with himself, "will you let me put a question to you first, and will you promise to answer it?"
I gave him my promise and waited eagerly for what was coming next.
"Miss Brading," he said, "tell me honestly — do you think I am mad?"
It was impossible to laugh at him: he spoke those strange words seriously — sternly, I might almost say.
"No such thought ever entered my head," I answered.
He looked at me very earnestly.
"You say that, on your word of honour?"
"On my word on honour."
I answered with perfect sincerity, and I evidently satisfied him that I had spoken the truth. He took my hand and lifted it gratefully to his lips.
"Thank you," he said simply. "You encourage me to tell you a very sad story."
"Your own story?" I asked.
"My own story. Let me begin by telling you why I persist in leaving your house always at the same early hour. Whenever I go out, I am bound by a promise to the person with whom I am living at Eastbourne to return at a quarter past nine o'clock."
"The person with whom you are living," I repeated. "You are living at a boarding-house, are you not?"
"I am living, Miss Brading, under the care of a doctor who keeps an asylum for the insane. He has taken a house for some of his wealthier patients at the sea-side, and he allows me my liberty in the daytime, on condition that I faithfully perform my promise at night. It is a quarter of an hour's walk from your house to the doctor's, and it is a rule that the patients return at half past nine o'clock." Here was the mystery, which had so sorely perplexed me, revealed at last! The disclosure literally struck me speechless. Unconsciously and instinctively I drew back from him a few steps. He fixed his sad eyes on me with a touching look of entreaty.
"Don't shrink away from me," he said. "You don't think I am mad?"
I was too confused and distressed to know what to say, and, at the same time, I was too fond of him not to answer that appeal. I took his hand and pressed it in silence. He turned his head aside for a moment. I thought I saw a tear on his cheek. I felt his hand close tremblingly on mine. He mastered himself with surprising resolution: he spoke with perfect composure when he looked at me again.
"Do you care to know my story," he asked, "after what I have just told you?"
"I am eager to hear it," I answered. "You don't know how I feel for you. I am too distressed to be able to express myself in words."
"You are the kindest and dearest of women!" he said — with the utmost fervour, and at the same time with the utmost respect.
We sat down together in a grassy hollow of the cliff, with our faces towards the grand grey sea. The daylight was beginning to fade, as I heard the story, which made me Roland Cameron's wife.
IV
"My mother died when I was an infant in arms," he began. "My father, from my earliest to my latest recollections, was always hard towards me. I have been told that I was an odd child, with strange ways of my own. My father detested anything that was strongly marked, anything out of the ordinary way, in the characters and habits of the persons about him. He himself lived (as the phrase is) by line and rule; and he determined to make his son follow his example. I was subjected to severe discipline at school, and I was carefully watched afterwards at college. Looking back on my early life, I can see no traces of happiness, I can find no tokens of sympathy. Sad submission to a hard destiny, weary wayfaring over unfriendly roads — such is the story of my life, from ten years old to twenty.
"I passed one autumn vacation at the Cumberland lakes — and there I met by accident with a young French lady. The result of that meeting decided my whole after-life.
"She filled the position of nursery governess in the house of a wealthy Englishman. I had frequent opportunities of seeing her. We took an innocent pleasure in each other's society. Her little experience of life was strangely like mine. There was a perfect sympathy of thought and feeling between us. We loved, or thought we loved. I was not twenty-one, and she was not eighteen, when I asked her to be my wife.
"I can understand my folly now, and I can laugh at it, or lament over it, as the humour moves me. And yet, I can't help pitying myself, when I look back at myself at that time — I was so young, so hungry for a little sympathy, so weary of my empty friendless life. Well! everything is comparative in this world. I was soon to regret, bitterly to regret that friendless life — wretched as it was.
"The poor girl's employer discovered our attachment through his wife. He at once communicated with my father.
"My father had but one word to say — he insisted on my going abroad, and leaving it to him to release me from my absurd engagement, in my absence. I answered him that I should be of age in a few mouths and that I was determined to marry the girl. He gave me three days to reconsider that resolution. I held to my resolution. In a week afterwards I was declared insane by two medical men, and I was placed by my father in a lunatic asylum.
"Was it an act of insanity for the son of a gentleman, with great expectations before him, to propose marriage to a nursery governess? I declare, as Heaven is my witness, I know of no other act of mine which could justify my father and justify the doctors in placing me under restraint.
"I was three years in that asylum. It was officially reported that the air did not agree with me. I was removed, for two years more, to another asylum in a remote part of England. For the five best years of my life I have been herded with madmen — and my reason has survived it. The impression I produce on you, on your father, on your brother, on all our friends at this picnic, is that I am as reasonable as the rest of my fellow-creatures. Am I rushing to a hasty conclusion, when I assert myself to be now, and always to have been, a sane man?
"At the end of my five years of arbitrary imprisonment in a free country, happily for me — I am ashamed to say it, but I must speak the truth — happily for me, my merciless father died. His trustees, to whom I was now consigned, felt some pity for me. They could not take the responsibility of granting me my freedom. But they placed me under the care of a surgeon, who received me into his private residence, and who allowed me free exercise in the open air.
A year's trial of this new mode of life satisfied th& surgeon, and satisfied everyone else who took the smallest interest in me, that I was perfectly fit to enjoy my liberty. I was freed from all restraint and was permitted to reside with a near relative of mine in that very Lake country which had been the scene of my fatal meeting with the French girl six years before."
Y
"I lived happily in the house of my relative, satisfied with the ordinary pursuits of a country gentleman. Time had long since cured me of my boysh infatuation for the nursery governess. I could revisit with perfect composure the paths along which we had walked, the lake on which we had sailed together. Hearing by chance that she was married in her own country, I could wish her all possible happiness, with the sober kindness of a disinterested friend. What a strange thread of irony runs through the texture of the simplest human life! The early love for which I had sacrificed and suffered so much, was now revealed to me in its true colours, as a boy's passing fancy — nothing more!
"Three years of peaceful freedom passed; freedom which, on the uncontradicted testimony of respectable witnesses, I never abused. Well, that long and happy interval, like all intervals, came to its end — and then the great misfortune of my life fell upon me. One of my uncles died, and left me inheritor of his whole fortune. I, alone, to the exclusion of the other heirs, now received not only the large income derived from the estates but seventy thousand pounds in ready money as well.
"The vile calumny which had asserted me to be mad was now revived by the wretches who were interested in stepping between me and my inheritance. A year ago I was sent back to the asylum in which I had been last imprisoned. The pretence for confining me was found in an 'act of violence' (as it was called), which I had committed in a momentary outbreak of anger, and which it was acknowledged had led to no serious results. Having got me into the asylum the conspirators proceeded to complete their work. A Commission in Lunacy was issued against me. It was held by one Commissioner, without a jury, and without the presence of a lawyer to assert my interests. By one man's decision I was declared to be of unsound mind. The custody of my person, as well as the management of my estates, was confided to men chosen from among the conspirators who had declared me to be mad. I am here through the favour of the proprietor of the asylum, who has given me my holiday at the seaside and who humanely trusts me with my liberty, as you see. At barely thirty years old I am refused the free use of my money and the free management of my affairs. At barely thirty yea rs old I am officially declared to be a lunatic for life!"
VI
He paused; his head sank on his breast; his story was told. I have repeated his words as nearly as I can remember them; but I can give no idea of the modest and touching resignation with which he spoke. To say that I pitied him with my whole heart, is to say nothing. I loved him with my whole heart — and I may acknowledge it, now!
"Oh, Mr. Cameron," I said, as soon as I could trust myself to speak, "can nothing be done to help you? Is there no hope?"
"There is always hope," he answered, without raising his head, "I have to thank you, Miss Brading, for teaching me that." ;
"To thank me?" I repeated. "How have I taught you to hope?"
"You have brightened my dreary life. When I am with you, all my bitter remembrances leave me. I am a happy man again, and a happy man can always hope. I dream now of finding what I have never yet had — a dear and devoted friend, who will rouse the energy that has sunk in me under the martyrdom that I have endured. Why do I submit to the loss of my rights and my liberty, without an effort to recovel them? I was alone in the world until I met with you. I had no kind hand to raise me, no kind voice to encourage me. Shall I ever find the hand? Shall I ever hear the voice? When I am with you, the hope that you have taught me answers, "Yes". When I am by myself, the old despair comes back, and says, "No".
He lifted his head for the first time. If I had not understood what his words meant, his look would have enlightened me. The tears came into my eyes; my heart heaved and fluttered wildly; my hands mechanically tore up and scattered the grass round me. The silence became unendurable. I spoke, hardly knowing what I was saying; tearing faster and faster at the poor harmless grass, as if my whole business in life was to pull up the greatest quantity in the shortest possible space of time!
"We have only known each other a little while," I said, "and a woman is but a weak ally in such a terrible position as yours. But useless as I may be, count on me, now and always, as your friend."
He moved close to me before I could say more and took my hand. He murmured in my ear, "May I count on you, one day, as the nearest and dearest friend of all? Will you forgive me, Mary, if I own that I love you? You have taught me to love, as you have taught me to hope. It is in your power to lighten my hard lot. You can recompense me for all that I have suffered. You can rouse me to struggle for my freedom and my rights. Be the good angel of my life. Forgive me, love me, rescue me — be my wife!"
I don't know how it happened. I found myself in his arms — and I answered him in a kiss. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I dare say I was guilty, in accepting him, of the rashest act that ever a woman committed. Very good. I didn't care then — I don't care now. I was then, and I am now, the happiest woman living.
2) Фрагмент з повісті Нечуй-Левицького "Микола Джеря"
- Чом це ти, Миколо, не роздягаєшся? - спитала в його
Нимидора.
- Кидай, Нимидоро, прясти. Йди сядь коло мене, я щось
маю тобі казать,- промовив Джеря дуже тихо, щоб не збу
дить матері.
Нимидора поклала гребінь на днище й сіла коло його.
- Скажу тобі, моє серце, що на душі маю: я тебе, молоду, цього вечора покинуть думаю. Я задумав цієї ночі втікать з
села з Кавуном та ще з чотирма чоловіками.
Нимидорі неначе хто гострим ножем штрикнув у серце. Вона охолола, отерпла, зблідла й сиділа, мов нежива.
- Не бійсь, Нимидоро, й не журись. Пан хоче нас оддать
в москалі; як він нам обголить лоби, то ми тоді пропащі на-
віки; а тим часом ми втечемо на сахарні, перебудемо цей важкий час та й знов повертаємось. Може, воно якось перетреть-
ся, перемнеться, та й так минеться.
- Ой, не кидай мене, моє серце, бо я пропаду! — несамо-
вито крикнула Нимидора на всю хату неначе не своїм голосом.
- Цить! Не кричи й не тужи! Ти збудиш матір: ви на-
робите галасу, тоді я пропащий.
Нимидора підвелась з лави і знов впала на лаву, мов нежива.
- Я не навіки тебе покидаю; я зароблю грошей і знов вернуся.
- Коли покидаєш мене, то бодай ти покинув хліб їсти й
воду пити! - промовила Нимидора без сліз, наче простогнала.
Literature
1. Баблоян З. "Нi" или "Нi?"? Язык женского в современной Украине // Новый образ.- 1998.- С.12-13.
2. Бакушева Е.М. Особенности эмоциональной речи мужчин и женщин // Язык и эмоции. - Волгоград, 1994.- С. 32-37.
3. Блакар Р. Язык как инструмент социальной власти // Язык и моделирование социального взаимодействия.- М.,1987. - С. 88-122.
4. Бурукина О.А. Гендер - перевод - переводчик // Мир перевода.- 2000.- С. 4-12.
5. Бурукина О.А. Гендер в переводе: Проблема трансформации менталитета // Гендерные исследования в гуманитарных науках: современные подходы. Материалы международной научной конференции / Ред. О.А. Хасбулатова.-. Ч.3. История, язык, культура.- Иваново, 2000.- С.65-74.
6. Бурукина О.А. Гендерный аспект перевода // Человек.- 2000.- С. 3 - 16.
7. Бурукина О.А. Личность переводчика в контексте гендерных исследований // Гендер: язык, культура, коммуникация: Материалы Первой международной конференции 25-26 ноября 1999 г. М., 1999.- С.25-26.
8. Ван Дейк Т.А. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация. - М, 1989.
9. Верещагин Е.М., Ротмайр Р., Ройтер Р. Речевые тактики "призыва к откровенности" // Вопросы языкознания.- 1992.- С.82-93.
10. Винокур Т.Г. Говорящий и слушающий: Варианты речевого поведения.- М., 1993.
11. Вул С.М., Горошко Е.И. Судебно-автороведческая классификационная диагностика: установление половой принадлежности автора документа // Современные достижения науки и техники в борьбе с преступностью: Матер. науч.-практ. конф.- Минск, 1992.- С.139-141.
12. Гендерные исследования в гуманитарных науках: современные подходы. Материалы международной научной конференции / Ред. О.А. Хасбулатова.-. Ч.3. История, язык, культура.- Иваново, 2000.
13. Гендерные отношения в России: история, современное состояние, перспективы: Материалы международной научной конференции. Иваново, 1999.
14. Гендерный фактор в языке и коммуникации / Отв. ред. И.И.Халеева.- Иваново, 1999.
15. Гордон Д., Лакофф Дж. Постулаты речевого общения // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике: (Лингвистическая прагматика). - М.: Прогресс, 1985. - С. 78 - 92.
16. Горошко Е.И. Особенности мужского и женского вербального поведения // Гендер: язык, культура, коммуникация: Материалы Первой международной конференции 25-26 ноября 1999 г. М., 1999.- С. 34-35.
17. Горошко Е.И. Особенности мужского и женского стиля письма // Гендерный фактор в языке и коммуникации.- Иваново, 1999.- С.28-41.
18. Грайс Г.П. Логика и речевое общение // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике: (Лингвистическая прагматика). - М.: Прогресс, 1985. - С. 165 - 236.
19. Грушевицкая Т.Г., Попков В.Д., Садохин А.П. Основы межкультурной коммуникации. - М., 2003.
20. Демьянков В.З. Доминирующие лигвистические теории в конце ХХ века //Язык и наука конца ХХ века. — Г.: РАН. — С.239-320.
21. Донец П.Н. Основы общей теории межкультурной коммуникации. — Харьков, 2001.
22. Зарецкая Е.Н. Риторика: Теория и практика речевой коммуникации. - М., 2002.
23. Зубенко Л.Г., Немцов В.Д. Культура ділового спілкування: Навчальний посібник. - К, 2002.
24. Кирилина А.В. Гендер: лингвистические аспекты. - М.: Ин-т социологии РАН, 1999. - 189 с.
25. Кирилина А.В. Гендерные компоненты этнических представлений: По результатам пилотажного эксперимента // Гендерный фактор в языке и коммуникации / Отв. ред. И.И.Халеева.- Иваново, 1999.- С. 46-53.
26. Кирилина А.В. Развитие гендерных исследований в лингвистике // Филологические науки.- 1998. - С.51-58.
27. Клюев Е.В. Речевая коомуникация. - М., 2002.
28. Козлов В.Г. Теория речевой коммуникации. - М., 2003.
29. Лаккофф Дж. Когнитивная семантика (Из книги "Женщины, огонь и опасные предметы") // Язык и интеллект. М., 1996. С.143-184.
30. Леонтьев А.А. Психология общения. – М., 1977. – 234 с.
31. Макаров М.Л. Основы теории дискурса. — М, 2003.
32. Мамонтов С. Тактика ведения переговоров. - М. - СПб - Нижиний Новгород - Воронеж - Ростов-на-Дону - Екатеринбург - Самара - Харьков, 2002.
33. Мартынюк А.П. О реализации принципа вежливости в речи мужчин и женщин // Вестник Харьковского университета. 1989. © 339. С. 89-92.
34. Носова Н., Хайдер К. Проблемы перевода: Гендер: язык, культура, коммуникация // Пол, гендер, культура / Ред. Э.Шорэ, К.Хайдер.- М., 2000.- Вып. 2.- С.15-21.
35. Остин Дж. Как производить действия при помощи слов // Остин Дж. Избранное. М., 1999.
36. Остин Дж. Л. Слово как действие // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике.- Вып. 17. Теория речевых актов.- М., 1986.- С.22-140.
37. Почепцов Г.Г. Теория и практика коммуникации. - М.: Рефл-бук.- Киев, 2001.
38. Сидорская И. "Женская" и "мужская" стратегии вербального коммуникативного поведения // Иной взгляд.- 2000.- С.23-25.
39. Снелл Фрэнк. Искусство делового общения. - М., 1990.
40. Соловьева И.В. К проблеме языковй вежливости в рамках гендерных исследований // Гендер: язык, культура, коммуникация: Материалы Первой международной конференции 25-26 ноября 1999 г. М., 1999.- С. 90-91.
41. Сопер Поль Основы искусства речи. - М., 1991.
42. Стернин И.А. Практическая риторика: Учебное пособие. - М., 2003.
43. Стилістика газетних жанрів – М., 1981.
44. Тархов В.И., Комиссаров В.Н., Рецкер Я.И. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский. – М., 1965. – 286 с.
45. Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология: Семантический, прагматический и лингвокультурный аспекты. М., 1996.
46. Тер – Минасова С.Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация: Учеб. пособие – М., 2000.
47. Холл Э. Как понять иностранца без слов. - М., 1995.
48. Человеческий фактор в языке: Коммуникацияя. модальность, дейксис. - М., 1992.
49. Чмут Т.К., Чайка Г.Л. Етика ділового спілкування. - Київ, 2002.
50. Шевченко Т.И. Различие в речевом поведении мужчины и женщины // Шевченко Т.И. Социальная дифференциация английского произношения.- М., 1980.- С.81-87.
51. Эрнст Отто. Слово предоставлено Вам: Практические рекомендации по ведению деловых бесед и переговоров. - М., 1988.
52. Этнические стереотипы мужского и женского поведения / Отв. ред. Байбурин А.К., Кон И.С.; АН СССР . Ин-т этнографии им. Н.Н. Муклухо-Маклая. - Спб.: Наука. С.-Петербург. отд-ние, 1991.
53. Язык и моделирование социального взаимодействия: Сб. ст. / Сост. В.М. Сергеева, П.Б. Паришина. – М., 1987.
54. Язык и стиль средств массовой информации и пропаганды: Печать, радио, телевидение и документальное кино. – М., 1980. – 120 с.
55. Языковое общение и его единицы: Межвузовский сб. ст. / Ред. кол. И.П. Сусов. – Кишинев: КГУ, 1986.
56. Barcelona, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: Cognitive Approaches. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986.
57. Barwise, J. and J. Peny. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1983.
58. Berlin, B. and P. Kay. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Ewlufion. Berkeley: University of Califomia.1969.
59. Bloomfield, L. [1914]. An Introduction to the Study of Language. Amsterdam:1983.
60. Bloomfield, L. Language. London: G. Alien and Unwin, Ltd.1935.
61. Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.1987.
62. Johnson, M. 'Philosophical Implications of Cognitive Semantics'. Cognitive Linguistics 1992. p. 345-366.
63. Kay, P. 'Synchronic variability and diachronic change in basic color terms'.1975.
64. Kovecses, Z. and G. Radden. 'Metonymy Developing a cognitive linguistic approach'. Cognitive Linguistics 1998. p/ 37-77.
65. Lakoff, G. . Women. Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.1987
66. Lakoff', G. 1988. 'Cognitive semantics'. In Eco, U., M. Santambrogio and P. Violi (eds.) Meaning and Mental Representations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988/ - p.119-54.
67. Lakoff, G. . 'The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract. Reason Based on Image-schemas?'. Cognitive Linguistics 19901.1: 39-74.
68. Lakoff, G. "The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor'. In A. Ortony (ed.), 1993. pp. 202-251.
69. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. . Metaphors We Live by. Chicago and London:Chicago University Press.1980
70. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.1999.
71. Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.1989.
72. Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.1987.
73. Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.199l.
74. Langacker, R.W. 'Reference-point constructions'. Cognitive Linguistics 4.1: 1-38. Leech, G. 1981. Semantics: the Study of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 2nd Ed.1993.
75. Lindner, S.J. A Lexico-semanfic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with 'Out 'and 'Up'. PhD Dissertation. University of California, San Diego.1982.
76. Michelena, L. . Diccionario General Vasco. Orotariko Eus/cal Hiztegia. Bilbao:1987-
77. Mervis, C.B. and E. Rosch. 'Categorization of natural objects'. Annual Review of Psychology 1981.: 89-115.
78. Ortony, A. [1979]. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1993.
79. Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought.1999.
80. Papafragou, A. . 'On metonymy'. Lingua 99.4: 169-195. Radden, G. In press. 'How metonymic are metaphors', m A. Barcelona (ed.).
81. Radden, G. and Z, Kovecses. 1996. 'Towards a theory of metonymy'. Hamburg:1996
82. Cognitive Linguistics: Explorations, Applications, Research (C.L.E.A.R.).
83. Reddy, M. [1979]. 'The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language'. In A. Ortony (ed.), 1993pp. 284-324.
84. Rosch, E. 'Natural Categories'. Cognitive Psychology 1973. p. 328-50.
85. Rosch, E. 'Human Categorization'. In N, Warren (ed.) Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology. London: Academic Press, vol. 1, 1977.pp. 1-49.
86. Rosch, E. 'Principles of categorization'. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum, 1978. pp. 27-48.
87. Rosch, E. 'Prototype classification and logical classification'. In E. Scholnik (ed.) New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piagel 's Theory. Hillsdale:Lawrence Eribaum1983. pp. 73-86.
88. Rosch, E. and C. Mervis. 'Family resemblances: Studies in the internal Structure of Categories'. Cognitive Psychology 1975.: 573-605.
89. Sperber D. and D. Wilson. [1986] Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Eng. and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwells.1995.
90. Sweetser, E. 'Polysemy as Abstraction: Mutually Exclusive or Complementary'. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1986. - pp. 528-539.
91. Talmy, L. 'Force dynamics in language and cognition'. Cognitive Science 1988. 49-100.
92. Talmy, L. 'Path to realisation: A typology of event conflation'. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1991. pp. 480-519.
93. Talmy, L. 'The windowing of attention'. In M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson (eds.) Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. pp. 235-287.
94. Taylor, J. [1989]. Linguistic Categorisation. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1995
95. Turner, M. Death is the Mother of Beauty. Chicago: Chicago University Press.1987.
96. Turner, M. 'Aspects of the Invariance Hypothesis'. Cognitive Linguistics, 1990. - 247-255.
97. Turner, M. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.1991.
98. Turner, M. The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1996.
99. Turner, M. and G. Fauconnier. 'Conceptual integration and formal expression'. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1995. 183-204.
100. Ungerer, F. and H-J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.1996.
CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................
Unit 1. The Approaches of the Actual Language
Researches....................................................................................
Lesson 1. The Approaches of the Actual Language
Researches....................................................................................
Unit 2. Modern Language Theories............................................
Lessons 1 - 3. Semantics.............................................................
Lessons 4 - 6. Cognitive Linguistics...........................................
Lessons 7 -9. Metaphor and Metonymy in the Light
of Cognitive Theory. Comparison of the Semantic and
Cognitive Approaches..................................................................
Lessons 10 - 12. Pragmatics........................................................
Lesson 13 - 14. Language and Cross-cultural
Communication.............................................................................