A Sociolinguistic Experiment in Defining the Forms of Impoliteness

Keywords: sociolinguistic experiment, survey, questioning, impoliteness, anti-etiquette, invective, non-codified lexis.


The importance of the study is determined by the need for a comprehensive analysis of the conducted sociolinguistic experiment in order to identify the forms and means of impoliteness and to clarify the linguistic status of the latter. The objective of the article is, by means of a survey, to find out the forms, types and means of impoliteness among the student youth. The investigation of social awareness of the anti-etiquette space based on the analysis of the SE participants’ answers has never before been in the focus of linguists. The object of the study is the sociolinguistic experiment, the subject being the characteristics of forms and means of impoliteness. The following scientific methods are employed: the method of observation – to fix linguistic and non-linguistic expressions of anti-etiquette forms; the descriptive method – to identify the characteristic features of forms and means of impoliteness; analysis and synthesis of factual material in order to systematize and classify the factual material; the field research method with a questionnaire as its most common technique – to collect the corpus; the quantitative method and the method of sociolinguistic analysis of the collected corpus – to process the revealed facts about the subject of the study; the psycholinguistic method – to process and analyze the speech data received from informants as a result of questioning, which helped to establish the forms, types and methods of impoliteness among students. Findings. The authors claim that a high degree of impoliteness in the speech of young people is a means of self-expression and self-establishment, a striving for violation of social taboo, a way to set up one’s own communicative rules. The use of the anti-etiquette forms of communication is influenced by a variety of factors such as age, sex, social status, area of residence, education, and profession. The survey has revealed certain differences in the regional use of the anti-etiquette forms in Ukraine. Being accurate and emotionally colored, those forms express a negative phenomenon which sometimes exists in the process of communication.


Download data is not yet available.


Belyanin, V.P. (2003). Psyholingvistika [Psycholinguistics]. Moscow: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute [in Russian].
Chemla, E. (2009). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data. Natural Language Semantics, 17(4), 299–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9043-9
Dombrovan, T. (2018). An Introduction to Linguistic Synergetics. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Filon, M.I., & Halunova, N.M. (2015). Na shliakhu piznannia antropotsentrychnoho buttia movy: ukrainska sotsiopsykholinhvistyka kintsia XX – pochatku XXI stolittia [On the Way of Cognition of Anthropocentric Being of the Language: Ukrainian Socio-Psycholinguistics of the end of the XXth – the beginning of the XXI century]. Visnyk Xarkivskogo nacionalnogo universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina – Bulletin of the Kharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazin, 73, 22–25 [in Ukrainian].
Formanova, S.V. (2013а). Antyetyketni formy spilkuvannia [Anti-etiquette forms of communication]. Mova – Language, 19, 65–69 [in Ukrainian].
Formanova, S.V. (2013b). Sotsiolinhvistychnyi eksperyment yak sposib vyznachennia invektyvnosti [Sociolinguistic experiment as a means of defining invectives]. Naukoviy visnyk PNPU im. K.D. Ushinskogo – Scientific Herald of the K.D. Ushinsky National Pedagogical University, 16, 234–240 [in Ukrainian].
Formanova, S.V. (2012). Invektyva v ukrayinskyi movi [Invective in the Ukrainian language]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Yartseva, V.N. (Eds.). (1990). Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya [in Russian].
Leksykon zahalnoho ta porivnialnoho literaturoznavstva [Lexicon of general and comparative literary criticism]. (2001). Chernivtsi: Zoloti lytavry [in Ukrainian].
Martinek, S.V. (2007). Ukrainskyi asotsiatyvnyi slovnyk [The Ukrainian associative dictionary]. (Vols. 1–2). Lviv: Vidavnichiy tsentr LNU imeni Ivana Franka [in Ukrainian].
Noveck, I., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: a gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009
Scherba, L.V. (1965). O troyakom aspekte yazyikovyih yavleniy i ob eksperimente v yazyikoznanii [On the triple aspect of language phenomena and on the experiment in linguistics]. Istoriya yazyikoznaniya XIX–XX vekov v ocherkah i izvlecheniyah – A History of Language Studies in XIX-XX cc in essays and abstracts (pp. 361–373). Moscow: Prosveschenie [in Russian].
Schwarz, F. (2017). Experimental Pragmatics. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.209

Abstract views: 444
PDF Downloads: 246
How to Cite
Formanova, S., & Dombrovan, T. (2019). A Sociolinguistic Experiment in Defining the Forms of Impoliteness. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 25(2), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-25-2-323-337