Pragmalinguistic Aspect of Interrogative Speech Acts in Discourse of “Rig Veda”
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-9-48-61
Abstract
The interrogative speech acts presented in the linguistic material of the “Rig Veda” — one of the most ancient and culturally significant works that were a manifestation of ritual and mythological discourse, are researched. The language of Vedic texts is considered from the standpoint of the functional approach as a pragmatic system for which such communicative characteristics as intentions and illocutionary power of utterances are relevant. The system of norms and ideas that govern speech activity in the Vedic ritual interaction is taken into account. It has been proven that interrogative speech acts are one of the most important pragmatic elements of this type of discourse. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that all the interrogative structures of the monument extracted as a result of a continuous sampling are studied for the first time from the point of view of pragmatics, taking into account communicative intentions. Various types of questions are described and analyzed, including interrogative constants, interrogative directives, including questions with secondary illocution, as well as proper interrogative sentences. The author comes to the conclusion that, in addition to non-specific pragmatics for a given linguistic material, interrogative sentences in the text of the Rig Veda contribute to the realization of the magic-incantatory function of speech. The results are valuable both for studying the named type of discourse and for clarifying the understanding of the text of the monument and Vedic culture as a whole.
About the Author
M. A. Voronkina
Federal State-Funded Educational Institution of Higher Education Don State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Margarita A. Voronkina, PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Department of Scientific and Technical Translation and Professional Communication
Rostov-on-Don
References
1. Arutyunova, N. D. (1981). Faktor adresata [Addressee Factor]. Izvestiya Akademii nauk SSSR. Seriya Literatury i yazyka, 4 [Izvestiya Akademii nauk SSSR. Literature and language series]. 356—367. (In Russ.).
2. Baranov, A. N., Kreydlin, G. E. (1992). Illokutivnoye vynuzhdeniye v strukture dialoga [Illocutionary compulsion in the structure of dialogue]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of linguistics], 2: 84—99. (In Russ.).
3. Demyankov, V. Z. (2007). Tekst i diskurs kak terminy i kak slova obydennogo yazyka [Text and discourse as terms and words of everyday language]. Voprosy filologii. Spetsvypusk [Questions of Philology]. 86—95. (In Russ.).
4. Elizarenkova, T. Ya. (1987). Vediyskiy yazyk [Vedic language]. Moskva: Nauka. 179 p. (In Russ.).
5. Elizarenkova, T. Ya. (1993). Yazyk i stil’ vediyskikh rishi [Language and style of Vedic Rishis]. Moskva: Nauka. 315 p. (In Russ.).
6. Elizarenkova, T. Ya., Toporov, V. N. (1984). O vediyskoy zagadke tipa brahmodya [About a Vedic riddle like brahmodya]. Paremiologicheskiye issledovaniya: sbornik statey [Paremiological research: collection of articles]. Moskva: Nauka. 14—46. (In Russ.).
7. Frankfort, H., Frankfort, H.A., Wilson,J.A., Jacobsen, T. (1946). Before philosophy. The intellectual adventure of ancient man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 401 p.
8. Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3: 22—40.
9. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. Style in Language. New York, London: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 350—377.
10. Lotman, Yu. M. (2001). Semiosfera [Semiosphere]. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo. 704 p. (In Russ.).
11. Petrova, E. B. (2018). Pragmalingvisticheskiye osobennosti rechevogo akta voprosa (na materiale amerikanskogo varianta angliyskogo yazyka) [Pragmalinguistic features of the speech act of the question (based on the American version of the English language)]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Tomsk state pedagogical University Journal], 4: 65—69. (In Russ.).
12. Searle, J. (1976). Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics, 3: 212 p.
13. Toporov, V. N. (1988). O rituale. Vvedeniye v problematiku [About the ritual. Introduction to problems]. Arkhaicheskiy ritual v folklornykh i ranneliteraturnykh pamyatnikakh [Archaic ritual in folklore and early literary monuments]. Moskva: Nauka. 7—60. (In Russ.).
14. Vinatova, I. V. (2009). Klassifikatsiya kosvennykh rechevykh aktov, vyrazhennykh v voprositelnoy forme (na materiale angliyskogo yazyka) [Classification of indirect speech acts expressed in the interrogative form (based on the material of the English language)]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk state University], 43 (181): 31—34. (In Russ.).
15. Yanko, T. E. (2008). Intonatsionnyye strategii russkoy rechi v sopostavitelnom aspekte [Intonation strategies of Russian speech in the comparative aspect]. Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur. 312 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Voronkina M.A. Pragmalinguistic Aspect of Interrogative Speech Acts in Discourse of “Rig Veda”. Nauchnyi dialog. 2020;(9):48-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-9-48-61
Views:
709
Email this article 