Family vs Discourse

Keywords: family discourse, dialogicality, addressability, spontaneity, situationality, informality.

Abstract

The article presents the investigation of the main communicative characteristics of the English family discourse considering some psycholinguistic aspects. The investigation was based on the discourse fragments which were microdialogues between family members selected from literary works of the XX – beginning of the XXI century by means of continuous sampling. The scientists’ views concerning the peculiarities of communication in the family were analyzed. The research is theoretically based on the modern linguistic approaches to the study of the discourse as a complex versatile phenomenon.

The article treats the family discourse as the communicative interaction of the speakers related by family (marital and consanguineous) ties, connected spiritually, by common household and mutual moral responsibility. It is found out that the discourse under investigation is characterized by such communicative characteristics as dialogicality, addressability, spontaneity, situationality, everyday character and informality. The communication in the family acquires a dialogical form. The interaction takes place through the direct contact of the speakers that are keenly conscious of the circumstances in which the communication proceeds. The content of the family dialogical speech can be understood when the situation in which it is developing is considered. There is a distinct correlation between the dialogical speech and the situation whose external circumstances can be absent at the moment of speech, but they are implied in the interlocutors’ consciousness and definitely reflected in it. Speech behaviour of each dialogue participant is greatly determined by partner’s speech behaviour, his/her psychological state, character and breeding. The interaction of the relatives displays the absence of the strict regulation of literary norms, arbitrary choice of lexical units, breach of normative speech rules, use of deictic means. The necessity to study the family discourse regarding a communicative situation that presupposes the notions of dominating strategy and tactics is focused on.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akimova, N., & Akimova, A. (2018). Rozuminnia tekstu yak spetsyfichnyi vyd rozuminnia [Text understanding as a special kind of understanding]. Psykholinhvistyka – Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2018-24-1-27-46 [in Ukrainian].
Alexandrovska, V. N. (2017). Psykhologiia idealnoho obrazu [Psychology of the ideal self]. Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Batsevych, F. S. (2010). Narysy z lingvistychnoii prahmatyky [An outline of linguistic pragmatics]. Lviv: PAIS [in Ukrainian].
Bezugla, L. R. (2007). Verbalizatsiia implitsytnykh smysliv u nimetskomovnomu dialogichnomu dyskursi [Verbalization of implicit senses in the German dialogical discourse]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina [in Ukrainian].
Bielova, A. D. (2004). Komunikatyvni strategiii i taktyky: problemy systematyky [Communicative strategies and tactics: problems of systematics]. Movni i kontseptualni kartyny svitu – Language and conceptual pictures of the world (pp. 11–16). Kyiv: Logos [in Ukrainian].
Bihari, A. A. (2006). Diskurs suchasnoii anhlomovnoii simii [Discourse of the modern English family]. Candidate’s thesis. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Brovkina, O. V. (2015). Strategiii anhlomovnoho rodynnoho dyskursu v sytuatsiiah vidvertoho spilkuvannia, utishannia, neporozuminnia [Strategies of the English family discourse in the situations of frank communication, consolation, misunderstanding]. Extended abstract of Candidate’s thesis. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Honcharuk, N., & Onufriieva, L. (2018). Psykhologichnyi analiz rivniv pobudovy komunikatyvnykh dii [Psychological analysis of levels of communicative actions construction]. Psykholinhvistyka – Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2018-24-1-97-117 [in Ukrainian].
Gorelov, I. N., & Sedov, K. F. (2004). Osnovy psykholingvistiki [Fundamentals of psycholinguistics]. Moscow: Labirint [in Russian].
Zachesova, I. A. (2007). Osobiennosti vzaimoponimaniia v semeinom dialogie [Peculiarities of mutual understanding in the family dialogue]. In V.A. Barabanshchikov & Ye.S. Samoilienko (Eds.), Obshcheniie i poznaniie – Communication and cognition (pp. 45–51). Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN [in Russian].
Zymych, Ye. V. (2011). Strukturno-semantychni i prahmatychni osoblyvosti marytalnoho dialohichnoho dyskursu [Structural-semantic and pragmatic peculiarities of the marital dialogical discourse]. Extended abstract of Candidate’s thesis. Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University [in Ukrainian].
Issers, O. S. (2006). Kommunikativnyie strategii i taktiki ruskoi riechi [Communicative strategies and tactics of the Russian speech]. Moscow: Kom kniga [in Russian].
Karasik, V. I. (2010). Yazykovoi krug: lichnost, kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: personality, concept, discourse]. Volgograd: Pieriemiena [in Russian].
Kozlova, V. V. (2012). Realizatsiia vykhovnoho vplyvu v anhlomovnomu dyskursi: strukturno-semantychnyi ta prahmatychnyi aspekty [Realization of educational influence in the English parental discourse: structural-semantic and pragmatic aspects]. Extended abstract of Candidate’s thesis. Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University [in Ukrainian].
Leontiev, A. A. (2003). Psikholingvisticheskiie yedinitsy i porozhdeniie rechevogo vyskazyvaniia [Psycholinguistic units and derivation of a speech utterance]. Moscow: Editorial [in Russian].
Osovska, I. M. (2010). Strategii i preferentni taktyky parentalnohoh nimetskomovnoho dyskursu [Strategies and preferential tactics of the parental German discourse]. Naukovi zapysky – Scientific Notes, 16, 240–246 [in Ukrainian].
Semeniuk, A. A. (2007). Henderni ta vikovi osoblyvosti kooperatyvnoii movlennievoii povedinky v simeinomu dyskursi (na materiali suchasnoii anhliiskoii movy) [Gender and age peculiarities of cooperative speech behavior in the family discourse (on the material of the modern English)]. Extended abstract of Сandidate’s thesis. Donetsk: Donetsk National University [in Ukrainian].
Soloshchuk, L. V. (2009). Vzaiemodiia verbalnykh i nevarbalnykh komponentiv komunikatsii u suchssnomu anhlomovnomu dyskursi [Interaction of verbal and non-verbal components of communication in the modern Enhglish discourse]. Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. Kyiv: Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University [in Ukrainian].
Sternin, I. A. (2001). Vvedeniie v riechievoie vozdeistviie [Introduction into speech interaction]. Voronezh: Poligraf [in Russian].
Susov, I. P. (2009). Lingvisticheskaia pragmatika [Lingusitic pragmatics]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha [in Russian].
Fadieieva, O. V. (2000). Strategii i taktyky konfliktnoho dyskursu [Strategies and tactics of the conflict discourse]. Extended abstract of Сandidate’s thesis. Kyiv: Kyiv State Linguistic University [in Ukriaian].
Formanovskaia, N. I. (2010). Kultura obshcheniia i riechevogo poviedieniia [Culture of communication and speech behaviour]. Moscow: IKAR [in Russian].
Frolova, I. Ye. (2009). Startegiia konfrontatsii v anhlomovnomu dyskursi [Confrontation strategy in the English discourse]. Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University [in Ukrainian].
Hmiliar, O. F. (2017). Psykhologiia symvolichnoi reguliatsii povedinky osobystosti [Psychology of the symbolic regulation of the behavior of a personality]. Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. Kyiv: G.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology of the NAPS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
Chantseva-Kovalenko, E. N. (2016). Harmoniini stosunky batkiv yak chynnyk osobystisnoho rozvytku dytyny [Parents’ harmonious relationships as a factor of the personal development of the child]. Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. Kyiv: G.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology of the NAPS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
Shevchenko, I. S., & Morozova, O. I. (2005). Dyskurs yak myslennievo-komunikatyvna diialnist [Discourse as a thinking-communicative activity]. Dyskurs yak kohnityvno-komunikatyvnyi fenomen – Discourse as a cognitive-communicatve phenomenon (pp. 21–28). Kharkiv: Konstanta [in Ukrainian].
Shevchenko, I. S. (2011). Dyskurs i iego kategorii [Discourse and its categories]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu im. V.N. Karazina – The journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 973(68), 6–12 [in Russian].
Frege, G. (1980). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung (pp. 40–65). Göttingen: Vandenhoek.
Greve, A., Cooper, E., Tibon, R., & Henson, N. R. (2019). Knowledge is power: Prior knowledge aids memory for both congruent and incongruent events, but in different ways. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000498
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 41–52.
Yemelyanova, O. V., & Baranova, S. V. (2017). Ukraine’s image verbalisation in modern English mass media discourse. Advance Research Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Discoveries, 18.0(XI), 52–57.
Zasyekin, S. (2010). Translation as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9134-2
Andrews, L. A. (2006). Wing and a Prayer. London: Headline Book Publishing.
Dickens, M. (1977). The Winds of Heaven. London: Penguin Books.
Evans, P. A (1998). Song in Your Heart. London: Headline Book Publishing.
Howard, A. (2003). Painted Highway. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Maugham, W. S. (2002). Theatre. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha.
O’riordan, K. (1995). Involved. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Stirling, J. (1977). The Spoiled Earth. London: Pan Books.
Winterson, J. (1990). Oranges are not the Only Fruit. London: Pandora.

Abstract views: 99
PDF Downloads: 148
Published
2019-04-18
How to Cite
Brovkina, O., & Baranova, S. (2019). Family vs Discourse. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 25(2), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-25-2-31-49