On the functions of the marker tipa tam in Russian oral discourse
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2024-8-147-156
Abstract
The work, based on corpus material, considers the functioning of the unit tipa tam in Russian oral everyday speech, which is a combination of two pragmatic markers (PM): the verbal hesitatives tipa and tam. Both markers are clearly multifunctional: PM tipa, in addition to the main function of hesitation, can also introduce someone else’s speech into the narrative (xeno-marker), and (less often) act as a delimiter, approximator and rhythmforming marker. PM tam, in addition to hesitation, can also act as a rhythmforming marker and (less often) a xeno-marker. The sources of material for the analysis were the spoken corpora of the Russian National Corpus and the oral corpus “One Speech Day”. The analysis showed that the main functions of the combination tipa tam can be recognized as hesitation, approximation, and input of someone else’s speech. The rhythm-forming function, inherent separately to each component of the combination, is not relevant for combining them – due to the too long length in the syllables of the resulting unit. It seems that the results of the study can be useful for a comprehensive analysis of oral discourse within the framework of colloquialism, in the practice of translating the speech of characters in Russian literary texts into other languages, as well as in the practice of teaching Russian as a foreign language.
Keywords: pragmatic marker, speech cliche, Russian speech, hesitation, approximation, xeno-marker
About the Author
Yanan Xiang
St. Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Xiang Yanan, postgraduate student,
bld. 11, Universitetskaya Embankment, St. Petersburg, 199034.
References
1. Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.) (2016), Russkii yazyk povsednevnogo obshcheniya: osobennosti funktsionirovaniya v raznykh sotsial’nykh gruppakh [Russian Language of Everyday Communication. Features of Functioning in Different Social Groups], LAIKA, St. Peterburg, Russia.
2. Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (2021), “Editor’s Foreword”, Pragmaticheskie markery russkoi povsednevnoi rechi: slovar’-monografiya [Pragmatic Markers of Russian Everyday Speech. Dictionary-Monograph], Nestor-Istoriya, St. Peterburg, Russia, pp. 5–52.
3. Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. and Ryko, A.I. (2022), “Xeno-Marker as an Interpreter of Silence or Speech Behavior in Oral Communication (Difficulties in Translation and Teaching RFL”, Sinergiya yazykov i kul’tur 2021: mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya [Synergy of Languages and Cultures 2021. Interdisciplinary Research], St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 80–89.
4. Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (2023), “Pragmatic Markers as an Indicator of the Level of Proficiency in the Russian Spoken Language (Based on the Speech of Foreign Speakers)”, Slovo. Slovar’. Slovesnost’: k 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya doktora filologicheskikh nauk, professora, chlena-korrespondenta RAO Sakmary Georgievny Il’enko, Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Word. Dictionary. Literature. Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Sakmara Georgievna Ilyenko, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education, Proceedings of the All-Russian Sci. Conf. Saint Petersburg, November 16–17, 2023], St. Petersburg, Russia (in print).
5. Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. and Xiang Yanan (2023), “Approximation and Hedging in Language and Speech”, Skrelin, P.A. and Kochetkova, U.E (eds.), Analiz razgovornoi russkoi rechi (AR3-2023), Trudy desyatogo mezhdistsiplinarnogo seminara [Analysis of Spoken Russian Speech (AR3-2023), 10th Int. Conf. Proc.], St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 60–65.
6. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. (1963), “Linguistics”, Izbrannye trudy po obshchemu yazykoznaniyu [Selected Works on General Linguistics], Akademiya nauk SSSR, Moscow, Russia, pp. 96–117.
7. Fraser, B. (2013), “Forthcoming. A Brief History of Hedging”, Schneider, St. (ed.), Vagueness in Language, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, Leeds, England, pp. 201–213.
8. Humboldt, W. fon. (1964), “On the Difference in the Structure of Human Languages and its Influence on the Spiritual Development of the Human Race (extracts)”, Zvegintsev, V.A. Istoriya yazykoznaniya XIX i XX vekov v ocherkakh i izvlecheniyakh [History of Linguistics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Essays and Extracts], Prosveshchenie, Moscow, Russia, pp. 85–104.
9. Lakoff, G. (1973), Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts, Journal of Philosophical Logic, no. 2, pp. 458–508.
10. Levontina, I.B. (2010), “Paraphrasing in Russian”, Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii, Ezhegodnaya Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya «Dialog» [Computer Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies, Annu. Int. Conf. “Dialogue (Bekasovo, May 26-30, 2010)], RGGU, Moscow, Russia, pp. 284–289.
11. Podlesskaya, V.I. (2013), “Fuzzy Nomination in Russian Colloquial Speech. Experience of Corpus Research”, Selegei, V.P.(ed.), Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii, Ezhegodnaya Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya «Dialog» [Computer Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies, Annual Int. Conf. “Dialogue” (Bekasovo, May 29- June 2, 2013). The main program of the conference, iss. 12 (19): in 2 vols. V. 1, RGGU, Moscow, Russia, pp. 631–643.
12. Zhukova, S.Yu., Orekhov, B.V. and Rakhilina, E.V. (2019), “Discourse Formulae in Russian: Diachronic Approach”, Proc. of the V.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, vol. 21. pp. 142–164.
Review
For citations:
Xiang Ya. On the functions of the marker tipa tam in Russian oral discourse. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2024;(8):147-156. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2024-8-147-156
Views:
46
Email this article 