Korolova Tetiana
State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”
E-mail: kortami863@gmail.com
ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000–0003–3441–196X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24195/2616-5317-2019-28-12
Nadiia Demianova
Odessa I. I. Mechnikov National University
E-mail: nadyadem1005@gmail.com
ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000–0002–2048–663
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24195/2616-5317-2019-28-12
Key words: addresses, functional and semantic peculiarities, Ukrainian and French languages, vocatives.
The vocative function of an address being the basic one is supplemented and modified by a number of other functions actualized in communication, i.e. the phatic one (establishing and developing the contact with the addressee), the status one (reflecting the status responsibility of the communicants), the emotional and attitudinal one (characterizing the addressee and the attitude of the speaker towards the uttered information). Such modification explains the polyfunctional character of the address in communication. All units of address, just like the components of the addressing functional field, are polysemantic and polysemy comprises every type of an address. According to the communicative tasks the following functions can be stated within the vocative one: nominative (naming the addressee), deixis (identifying the addressee), vocative proper (attracting the addressee’s attention). The field model of addresses’ semantic structures allows to research standard and nonstandard vocatives. The standard addresses form the nucleus of the semantic field under research and characterize stability of their application in one of the above-mentioned functions. Nonstandard vocative lexemes (1 % of the total amount of the experimental material) can play the role of an address under certain circumstances. They form semantically heterogeneous (conditioned by a situation) group, located in the periphery area of the semantic field of addresses. The addresses that include anthroponyms form the most widely used group (64,5 % in Ukrainian and 68,1 % in French), the second place belongs to the addresses with appellatives (34,6 % and 29,9 %, correspondingly). As to the composition of appellatives in the status and role addresses they comprise 36,4 % in Ukrainian and 34,9 % in French. Attitudinal addresses reach 63 % and 65,1 %, correspondingly.
REFERENCES
1. Adamushko N. I. Socialnaya obuslovlennost funkcionirovaniya edinic-obrashenij v sovremennom nemeckom yazyke: avtoref. Dis.. na soisk. ychen. step. kand.. filol..nauk (10.02.04) / N. I. Andrushko. — M., 1973. — 24s.
2. Bugakova N. V. Kategoriya obrasheniya v svete kognitivnoj lingvistiki. Na materiale francuzskogo yazyka: Dis. … kand. filol. Nauk. — Voronezh, 2001. — 134s.
3. Vojtovich S. I. O rechevom akte obrasheniya //Vestnik Kievskogo un-ta. Romano-germanskaya filologiya. — 1998. — Vyp.22. — S. 11–13.
4. Karasik V. I. Modelnaya lichnost kak lingvokulturnyj koncept. / V. I. Karasik // Filologiya i kultura. Materialy Tretej mezhdunarodnoj nauch. konf., Tambov 16–18 maya 2001g.: V 3 ch. / otv. red. N. N. Boldyrev. — Tambov, 2001. — Ch. 2. — S. 98–101.
5. Kubryakova E. S. Yazyk i znanie. Na puti polucheniya znanij o yazyke. Chasti rechi s kognitivnoj tochki zreniya. Rol yazyka v poznanii mira / Ros. akademiya nauk. In-t yazykoznaniya. — M. — Yazyki slavyanskoj kultury, 2004. — 560s.
6. Malcev I. V. Funkcionalno-sintaksichni harakteristiki zvertannya: avtoref. Dis.. na zdobuttya nauk. ctep. kand.. filol.. nauk / I. V. Malcev. — Leninigrad, 1986. — 19s.
7. Mitrofanova O. A. Strukturnyj analiz signifikativnogo znacheniya. (Na materiale glagolov myshleniya anglijskogo i russkogo yazykov). — SPb.: Izd-vo S. Peterburgskogo un-ta, 1997. — 40s.
8. Molchanova G. G. Imya sobstvennoe i sliyanie konceptov (osnovaniya kognitivnoj stilistiki) // Tradicionnye problemy yazykoznaniya v svete novyh paradigm znaniya / Mat. Kruglogo Stola, aprel 2000. — M., 2000. — S. 75–81.
9. Formanovskaya N. I. Kultura obsheniya i rechevoj etiket/ N. I. Formanovskaya. — M.: Ikar, 2002. — 236s.
10. Shkolnik L. S. Nekotorye psihologicheskie problemy rechevogo vozdejstviya. — M.: Sovetskaya enciklopediya, 1990. — S. 340–341.Brown F. Terms of Address Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages. — Berlin, 1988. — 309 p.
11. Ervin — Tripp S. M. || Sociolinguistics. Advantage in the Sociology of Language. Vol. 1, J. A. Fishman (Ed.). — The Hague: Mouton, 1976. — P. 15–91.
12. Max K., Adler M. J. Naming and Addressing. — Hamburg, 1978. — 281p.
13. Wunderlich D. Grundlagen der Linguistik:. — Hamburg: Busker Verlag, 1974. — 77 p.