National cultural characteristics of the Khanty’s communicative  behavior in stimulating speech acts

Sophia V. Onina; Margarita S. Vyhrystyuk; Julia V. Islamova; Marina G. Baksheyeva; Natalia G. Dolzhenko; Elena A. Chelak; Irina P. Savchuk

Sophia V. Onina Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanistic Institute of Northern studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia
Margarita S. Vyhrystyuk Philological education Department, faculty of Humanities of Tobolsk pedagogical University Institute. D. I. Mendeleev (branch) Tyumen state University, Tobolsk, Russian Federation
Julia V. Islamova Department of Russian language and literature Humanitarian Institute of Arctic social research doctor Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia
Marina G. Baksheyeva Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia
Natalia G. Dolzhenko Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra State University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia
Elena A. Chelak Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia
Irina P. Savchuk Department of Russian language and literature Humanitarian Institute of Northern studies Yugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Keywords: Speech act, communicative behavior, motivation, Khanty peoples, national and cultural characteristics.

Abstract

The scientific article for the first time presents a study of the ways of expressing motives on the material of the Khanty language. These methods are comprehensively analyzed in specific communicative situations used by the speaker and addressed to the listener. The imperative paradigm in speech constructs includes word forms of the verbal lexeme, expressing an imperative meaning addressed to the listener. As a result of linguistic analysis of such speech acts, it is revealed that the speaker’s will regarding the execution of the called action is expressed regardless of who performs the action: the listener, the speaker, the person not participating in the speech act, or any combination of the listed persons. The main (nuclear) way of expressing an impulse is an imperative construct.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Sophia V. Onina, Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanistic Institute of Northern studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Candidate of philological Sciences, associate Professor, leading researcher of the Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanistic Institute of Northern studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Margarita S. Vyhrystyuk, Philological education Department, faculty of Humanities of Tobolsk pedagogical University Institute. D. I. Mendeleev (branch) Tyumen state University, Tobolsk, Russian Federation

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of philological education Department, faculty of Humanities of Tobolsk pedagogical University Institute. D. I. Mendeleev (branch) Tyumen state University, Tobolsk, Russian Federation

Julia V. Islamova, Department of Russian language and literature Humanitarian Institute of Arctic social research doctor Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Candidate of philological Sciences, associate Professor, associate Professor of the Department of Russian language and literature Humanitarian Institute of Arctic social research doctor Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Marina G. Baksheyeva, Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Candidate of philological Sciences, associate Professor, associate Professor of the Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Natalia G. Dolzhenko, Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra State University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Doctor of Philology, associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra State University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Elena A. Chelak, Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Candidate of philological Sciences, associate Professor, associate Professor of the Department of Russian language and literature of the Humanitarian Institute of religious studies, Ugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Irina P. Savchuk, Department of Russian language and literature Humanitarian Institute of Northern studies Yugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

Junior researcher Department of Russian language and literature Humanitarian Institute of Northern studies Yugra state University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

References

Arutyunova, N. D. (2009). The sentence and its sense: Logical and semantic problems. Moscow: Book house “Librokom”, 230 р.

Аlpatov, V.М. (1973). The category of politeness in modern Japanese. M.: Science, 1973. 163 р.

Berdyaev, Н.А. (1990). Selfknowledge. М.. 196 р.

Dubichinsky, V.V. (1993). Lexical Parallels. Kharkov, 253 р.

Formanovskaya, N.I. (1998). Communicative and pragmatic aspects of communication units. Moscow: Russian language Institute. name A. S. Pushkin, 250 р.

Gumboldt, V. (1994). On the difference in the structure of human languages and its impact on the spiritual development of mankind // Selected works on linguistics. М.. 294 р.

Jacobson, R. (1975). Linguistics and poetics // Structuralism “for” and “against”. М.: Progress, P. 193-230.

Kholodovich, А.А. (1967). On the typology of speech // historical and philological studies. М.. 187 р.

Khrakovsk,y V.S., Volodin, A. P. (1986). Semantics and typology of the imperative. Russian imperative. L.: Science, 1986. 290 р.

Larina, Т.V. (2009). Category of politeness and communication style: Comparison of English and Russian linguistic and cultural traditions. М.: Handwritten monuments of Ancient Russia, 2009. P. 223.

Melchuk, I.А. (1998). Course of General morphology. Т. II. P. 2.: Morphological values. M.: Lang.Rusyi. culture, Vienna: WienerSlavistischerAlmanach, 1998. 355 р.

Onina, S.V. (2001). On some functions of the Luv pronoun ‘on, she’ in the Khanty language // Proceedings of the III Ugric readings / Ed. In. Lukin. Tomsk, 2001. 248 р.

Plungyan, V.А. (2011). Introduction to grammatical semantics: grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of world languages: studies benefit. M.: RSUH, 2011. 672 р.

Solovar, V.N. (2006). Khanty-Russian dictionary. SPb: ООО «Мirall».