Nationally specific stereotypes of verbal and non-verbal behavior in expressing surprise in the Russian and English languages.

The empirical chapter is devoted to the comparative analysis of linguistic and cultural means of expressing surprise in the English and Russian languages. So, we can draw some conclusions.

The situation of surprise remains the same in both languages, that is, it is a verbal and nonverbal expression of one’s emotional state, feelings, and reactions resulting from something unexpected, unusual and incomprehensible. Surprise is a type of reaction, which is closely connected with the conscious activity of people. That means that surprise relates to culturally colored emotions. The analysis showed that surprise can be expressed by performative verbs. In the Russian language, the most frequently used performatives are удивляться (20 usages), поражаться (17 usages). In the English language, the most frequent are wonder (12 usages) and surprise (16 usages). Having employed componential analysis of definitions of these verbs, we have isolated expressive semes, which allowed us to define the degree of their emotive intensity. Proceeding from the fact, that the Russian language employs performatives of both high and low emotive intensity and the English language most frequently uses performatives of low emotive intensity, we can assume that the English tend to choose less expressive means. The analysis also showed that surprise should be viewed as a speech act, the illocutionary purposes of which include the following intentions: to express a positive or negative attitude to the new information, to express the speaker’s distrust to the new information, so as to get the explanation from the addressee. The perlocutionary purpose is to get a positive or negative reaction to the new state of affairs, depending on the situation of communication, so as to demonstrate the interest to the interlocutor and the information produced by him/her or to demonstrate a stereotypical reaction imposed by etiquette. Schematically the comparative analysis of the speech acts of surprise in both languages is presented in the table.

Table 7. Speech acts expressing surprise in the English and Russian languages.

Speech act	Number of usages and frequency (%) in the Russian language	Number of usages and frequency (%) in the English language
Institutional – etiquette expressions	21 (14%)	40 (46%)
Requestives	3 (4%)	27 (31%)
Expressives	36 (42%)	20 (23%)

Thus, we can see that the English language is richer in number of institutional speech acts and requestives than the Russian language, which is characterized by frequent use of expressives. It should also be noted, that institutional speech acts expressing sarcasm and requestives expressing support of the interlocutor are present only in the Russian language. This is explained by different types of cultures. English culture is defined as an individualistic one. The representatives of such a culture tend to be reserved, secretive and express emotions insincerely. Russian culture is defined as collectivist one. The representatives of such a culture readily express their emotions openly and sincerely, because it is accepted and even imposed by cultural norms.

Expressives in the Russian language are characterized by the use of the lexis of informal character, including: verbs (ошалеть, обалдеть, одуреть); nouns (загадка, сенсация, сюрприз) used in syntactic structure “exclamatory particle + intensifying particle + noun” («Вот это сюрприз!», «Вот это сенсация!»); informal intensifying adverb “неужели”; interjections of euphemistic character («О Боже мой!», «Господи», «Боже правый», «Черт возьми», «Черт подери»). Institutional speech acts are expressed by the following syntactic structures exclamatory pronoun + noun («Какая встреча!», «Какими судьбами!», «Какой сюрприз»), pronoun + I + verb in the first person singular («Кого я вижу!»), infinitive + adverb («Подумать только!»).

In the English language institutional speech acts are expressed by the following structural model: what + adj + noun (What a lovely surprise). Speech act of requestives in the English language is characterized by the use of negative syntactic structure personal pronoun + cannot (or second person singular of the verb do + negation) + verb (“I can’t believe it”, “You don’t say it!”, “You don’t mean it”, “You don’t say”, “She couldn’t have survived that”):

Comparative stylistic analysis of the means of expressing surprise also allowed us to single out a number of differences. Schematically, the analysis is represented in the table.

Table 8. Stylistic means of expressing surprise in the Russian and English languages.

Stylistic means	Number of usages in the Russian language	Number of usages in the English language
Structural stylistic device - repetition
Structural stylistic device - ellipsis
Structural stylistic device - aposiopesis	-
Phraseological units expressing discontent at unexpected turn of events		-
Phraseological units – Group 1 expressing surprise at smth which is difficult to understand	-
Phraseological units – Group 2 expressing surprise at unexpected appearance	-
Phraseological units – Group 3 expressing disbelief	-
Total number of usages

 

Thus, as we can see from the table, English stylistic means of expressing surprise, are more diverse and numerous, than Russian ones. Taking into account, that stylistic means are defined as implicit, it can be assumed that the English prefer to convey surprise less expressively. Again, it can be explained by cultural differences. The dominant feature of Russian culture is straightforwardness and predominance of content. Thus, they express emotions directly and sincerely.

The comparative analysis of non-verbal means of expressing surprise is presented in the table.

Table 9. Non-verbal means of expressing surprise in the Russian and English languages.

Non-verbal means	Number of usages in the Russian language	Number of usages in the English language
Mimic kinemes
Manual kinemes	-
Phraseological units describing mimic changes
Phraseological units describing state of shock
Phraseological units describing hand movements		-
Phraseological units describing surprise at a sudden appearance of a person	-
Total number of usages

 

Thus, as we can see from the table, the English language employs non-verbal means more frequently, than the Russian language. Manual kinemes (to grasp/clutch at one’s hand, to bury one’s head in one’s hands) and phraseological units describing surprise at a sudden appearance of a person (to jump out of one’s skin) are present only in the English language. Phraseological units describing hand movements (всплеснуть руками, разводить руками) are present only in the Russian language. It should be stressed, that in Russian non-verbal culture much attention is paid to the expression of the eyes, because it is highly important to establish eye-contact with the interlocutor. This is why they frequently express surprise by mimic changes of their eyes. On the contrary, the English, being representatives of individualistic culture, avoid establishing contact with interlocutor and this explains their tendency to use non-verbal means describing their shocked and surprised state.

So, we can conclude that discrepancies in verbal and non-verbal behavior stems from different types of Russian and English cultures. Russian people, being representatives of a collectivist culture, tend to be explicitly open-hearted, sincere and straightforward, which explains their preference to use expressive linguistic means. However, it should be noted, that they are open only to their close friends and relatives. Thus, they tend to use typical etiquette expressions when it comes to interacting with strangers.

On the contrary, English people, being representatives of individualistic culture, tend to use implicit means of expressing surprise. The dominant feature of this type of culture is demonstrative and even feigned friendliness. Expression of surprise is characterized by markedly explicit, emphatic and even hyperbolic demonstration of goodwill without obligatory cultural demand to correspond to the true feelings of the speaker. Another dominant feature of individualistic culture is personal independence and self-reliance. This can be demonstrated by their tendency to be persistent and see the situation of surprise as the force, which impels the person to act in an unexpected situation with the intention of changing it in their favor.

 

Conclusions.

Having analyzed the linguistic and cultural peculiarities of means of expressing surprise in the English and Russian languages, we can draw some conclusions.

The aim of the paper, to compare cultural linguistic peculiarities of the means of surprise in the two languages, was reached by the fulfillment of the tasks which were set in the Introduction.

The present paper consists of introduction, two theoretical chapters and one empirical chapter, the conclusion and the list of references.

In the first chapter we considered speech behavior of a person and the way the social factors influence over our speech and the way it reflects in the language. We considered the problems connected with the social condition of the language, with the function of the language in the social environment, with the influence of social factors over the language development. We also considered the theory of speech acts. Speech act is not only a linguistic expression, but also an action. These actions are performed in view of norms and rules of behavior accepted in the society in concrete speech situations. That is why the principle of politeness and speech etiquette is also considered in this chapter. We also considered non-verbal communicative behavior as it is an integral component of communicative behavior.

The second chapter deals with interaction of cultural and linguistic aspects, considers specificity of cultural linguistics investigation field and methods, as well as specific features of the English and Russian cultures.

The third chapter is devoted to the comparative analysis of linguistic and cultural means of expressing surprise in the English and Russian languages. The analysis showed that surprise can be expressed by performative verbs. In the Russian language, the most frequently used performatives are удивляться, поражаться. In the English language, the most frequent are wonder and surprise. Having employed componential analysis of definitions of these verbs, we have isolated expressive semes, which allowed us to define the degree of their emotive intensity. Proceeding from the fact, that the Russian language employs performatives of both high and low emotive intensity and the English language most frequently uses performatives of low emotive intensity, we can assume that the English tend to choose less expressive means. The analysis also showed that surprise should be viewed as a speech act, the illocutionary purposes of which include the following intentions: to express a positive or negative attitude to the new information, to express the speaker’s distrust to the new information, so as to get the explanation from the addressee. The perlocutionary purpose is to get a positive or negative reaction to the new state of affairs, depending on the situation of communication, so as to demonstrate the interest to the interlocutor and the information produced by him/her or to demonstrate a stereotypical reaction imposed by etiquette.

The English language is richer in number of institutional speech acts and requestives than the Russian language, which is characterized by frequent use of expressives. It should also be noted, that institutional speech acts expressing sarcasm and requestives expressing support of the interlocutor are present only in the Russian language. This is explained by different types of cultures. English culture is defined as an individualistic one. The representatives of such a culture tend to be reserved, secretive and express emotions insincerely. Russian culture is defined as collectivist one. The representatives of such a culture readily express their emotions openly and sincerely, because it is accepted and even imposed by cultural norms.

Expressives in the Russian language are characterized by the use of the lexis of informal character, including: verbs (ошалеть, обалдеть, одуреть); nouns (загадка, сенсация, сюрприз) used in syntactic structure “exclamatory particle + intensifying particle + noun” («Вот это сюрприз!», «Вот это сенсация!»); informal intensifying adverb “неужели”; interjections of euphemistic character («О Боже мой!», «Господи», «Боже правый», «Черт возьми», «Черт подери»). Institutional speech acts are expressed by the following syntactic structures exclamatory pronoun + noun («Какая встреча!», «Какими судьбами!», «Какой сюрприз»), pronoun + I + verb in the first person singular («Кого я вижу!»), infinitive + adverb («Подумать только!»).

In the English language institutional speech acts are expressed by the following structural model: what + adj + noun (What a lovely surprise). Speech act of requestives in the English language is characterized by the use of negative syntactic structure personal pronoun + cannot (or second person singular of the verb do + negation) + verb (“I can’t believe it”, “You don’t say it!”, “You don’t mean it”, “You don’t say”, “She couldn’t have survived that”):

Comparative stylistic analysis of the means of expressing surprise also allowed us to single out a number of differences. English stylistic means of expressing surprise, are more diverse and numerous, than Russian ones. Taking into account, that stylistic means are defined as implicit, it can be assumed that the English prefer to convey surprise less expressively. Again, it can be explained by cultural differences. The dominant feature of Russian culture is straightforwardness and predominance of content. Thus, they express emotions directly and sincerely.

The English language employs non-verbal means more frequently, than the Russian language. Manual kinemes (to grasp/clutch at one’s hand, to bury one’s head in one’s hands) and phraseological units describing surprise at a sudden appearance of a person (to jump out of one’s skin) are present only in the English language. Phraseological units describing hand movements (всплеснуть руками, разводить руками) are present only in the Russian language. It should be stressed, that in Russian non-verbal culture much attention is paid to the expression of the eyes, because it is highly important to establish eye-contact with the interlocutor. This is why they frequently express surprise by mimic changes of their eyes. On the contrary, the English, being representatives of individualistic culture, avoid establishing contact with interlocutor and this explains their tendency to use non-verbal means describing their shocked and surprised state.

So, we can conclude that discrepancies in verbal and non-verbal behavior stems from different types of Russian and English cultures. Russian people, being representatives of a collectivist culture, tend to be explicitly open-hearted, sincere and straightforward, which explains their preference to use expressive linguistic means. However, it should be noted, that they are open only to their close friends and relatives. Thus, they tend to use typical etiquette expressions when it comes to interacting with strangers.

On the contrary, English people, being representatives of individualistic culture, tend to use implicit means of expressing surprise. The dominant feature of this type of culture is demonstrative and even feigned friendliness. Expression of surprise is characterized by markedly explicit, emphatic and even hyperbolic demonstration of goodwill without obligatory cultural demand to correspond to the true feelings of the speaker. Another dominant feature of individualistic culture is personal independence and self-reliance. This can be demonstrated by their tendency to be persistent and see the situation of surprise as the force, which impels the person to act in an unexpected situation with the intention of changing it in their favor.

 

 

List of references:

1. Апресян Ю.Д. Избранные труды, том II. Интегральное описание языка и системная лексикография. – М.: ≪Языки русской культуры≫, 1995.

2. Арнольд И.В. Потенциальные и скрытые семы и их актуализация в английском художественном тексте // Иностранные языки в школе. - 1979. - № 5. - С. 10-14.

3. Арутюнова, Н. Д. Язык и мир человека – М.: Языки русской культуры. – 1999. – 896с.

4. Белл, Р. Т. Социолингвистика. Цели, методы и проблемы – М.: Международные отношения, 1980. – 318 с.

5. Балли Ш. Французская стилистика. –М. 1961.

6. Беляева Е.И. Грамматика и прагматика побуждения: Английский язык. Воронеж, издательство ВГУ, 1992.

7. Богданов В.В. Деятельный аспект семантики. Прагматика и семнатика синтаксических единиц: сборник научных трудов – КГУ, 1984.

8.Верещагин ЕМ. и Костомаров В.Г. Язык и культура: Лингвострановедение в преподавании русского языка как иностранного. 4-е.изд., перераб. и доп. – М., 1990

9. Верещагин Е.М., Костомаров В.Г. О своеобразии отражения мимики и жестов вербальными средствами (на материале русского языка) // Вопросы языкознания 1981. – № 1.

10. Воробьев, В. В. Лингвокультурология: теория и методы - М.: изд-во РУДН, 1997. – 331 с

11.Глушак В.М. Речевое поведение коммуникантов в ситуациях повседневного общения. Монография. – Новосибирск: ЦРНС, 2009. – 165 с.

12. Грайс Г.П. Логика и речевое общение. Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Выпуск 16. М: Прогресс, 1989.

13. Гудков Д.Б. Типы коммуникативных неудач// Slavica gandensia, 2000, № 27.

14. Ермакова О.Н., Земская Е.А. К построению типологии коммуникативных неудач// Русский язык в его функционировании. – М., 1993.

15. Земская, Е. А. Русская разговорная речь: лингвистический анализ и проблемы обучения: учебное пособие – М.: Русский язык, 1979. – 240 с.

16. Зубкова, Я. В. Концепт «пунктуальность» в немецкой и русской лингвокультурах: Автореф. дис…канд. филол. наук. – Волгоград, 2003.

17. Иванова С.В. Культурологический аспект языковых единиц. - Уфа, 2002. - 116 с.

18. Иванова С.В. Лингвокультурологический аспект исследования языковых единиц: Автореферат дисс.... док. филол. наук. - Уфа: 2003.-41 с.

19. Иванова С.В., Чанышева З.З. Лингвокультурологя: проблемы, поиски, решения: Монография. – Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2010. С. 37-51, 104-127.

20. Ионин Л.Г. Социология культуры. - М.: Логос, 1996. - 280 с.

21. Капанадзе Л.А., Красильникова Е.В. Жест и структура высказывания в разговорной речи // Русская разговорная речь. – М., 1973.

22. Карасик, В. И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс - Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. – 477 с.

23. Карасик, В. И., Слышкин, Г. Г. Лингвокультурный концепт как единица исследования // Методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики: Сб. науч. Трудов / Под ред. И. А. Стернина. – Воронеж, 2001.

24. Кобозева И.М. Лингвистическая семантика. - М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2000. - 352 с.

25. Костомаров В.Г., Бурвикова Н.Д. Об одной из единиц описания текста в аспекте диалога культур // Иностранные языки в школе. - 2000. - № 5. - С. 3-6.

26. Красных В.В. Этнопсихолингвистика и пингвокультурология: Курс лекций. - М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис», 2002. - 284 с.

27. Колшанский Г.В. Соотношение субъективных и объективных факторов в языке. - М.: Наука, 1975.

28. Крейдлин Г.Е. Невербальная семиотика: Язык тела и естественный язык. – М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2004.

29.Кукушин В.С. Деловой этикет. - Москва – Ростов-на-Дону: МарТ., 2003.

30. Ладо Р. Лингвистика поверх границ культур // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Выпуск XXV. - М.: Прогресс, 1989. - С. 32-62.

31. Лебедева Н.М. Введение в этническую и кросскультурную психологию - Издательский дом: Ключ., 1999.

32. Леонтьев А.А. Язык, речь, речевая деятельность. М: Просвещение, 1969.

33. Маслова, В. А. Лингвокультурология: учебное пособие для студентов высших учебных заведений – М., 2001. – 208 с.

34. Мечковская Н. Б. Социальная лингвистика. – М., 2000.

35. Муханов И.Л. Интонация в практике русской диалогической речи – М., 2009

36. Николаева В.В. Эстетика языка и речи – Л.: Наука, 1979. – 216с]

37. Попова, З. Д., Стернин, И. А. Язык как национальная картина мира – Воронеж, 2000. – 59 с.

38. Степанов, Ю. С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования - М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1997. – 824 с.

39. Стернин, И.А. Улыбка в русской коммуникативном поведении – М., 2000а

40. Стернин, И.А. Что такое коммуникативное поведение? – М., 2002б

41. Стернин И.А.. О понятии коммуникативного поведения – Halle., 1989 - 279-282с

42. Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология. Семантический, прагматический и лингвокультурологический аспекты - М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1998. - 288с.

43. Фокс К. Наблюдая за англичанами. Скрытые правила поведения. – М., 2008

44.Формановская Н.И. Употребление русского речевого этикета – М., 1982

45.Формановская Н. И. Русский речевой этикет: лингвистический и методический аспекты – М., 1987

46.Формановская Н.И. Речевое общение: коммуникативно-прагматический подход – М., 2002а

47.Формановская Н.И. Русский речевой этикет: нормативный социокультурный контекст – М., 2002 б.

48. Чанышева З.З. Уровни понимания в межкультурном общении//Языковые единицыв парадигматике и синтакгматике: Сб.науч. Статей: В 2 ч. Ч.I. – Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2008. – С.225-235

49. Швейцер А.Д. Введение в социолингвстику. М., 1978.

50. Austin I.L. How to do thing with words. Oxford University, 1962.

51. Hanvey R.G. Cross-cultural awareness // An attainable global perspective. - New York: Center for global perspective, 1976.

52. Izard C.E. The Psychology Of Emotions, 1991.

53. Lucy J.A. The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research // Rethinking Linguistic Relativity / Ed. by J.J. Gumperz and S.C. Levinson. - Cambridge University Press, 1996. - P 37- 69.

54. Niemeier S. and Dirven R. The Language of Emotions, 1997 – p.162-163

55. Omaggio A.C. Teaching Language in Context. - Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Inc., 1986. -479 p.

56. Searle J.R. Expression and meaning. Cambridge, 1979.

57. Seelye H.N. Teaching Culture: Strategies for Intercultural Communication. - Lincolnwood, Illinois USA: NTC Publishing Group, 1993.-XIII, 289 p.

58. Whorf B. Language, Thought, and Reality. - Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1956. - XI, 278 p.

 

 

Dictionaries:

1. Ожегов С.И., Шведова Н.Ю. Толковый словарь русского языка M., 1949.

2. Oxford Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms, complied by Alan Spooner, 2005, Oxford University Press.

3. Soule’s Dictionary of English Synonyms. Словарь синонимов английского языка.

4. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Micropaedia. Knowledge in Depth. -Vol. 22. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: Chicago, 1994.-994 p.

 

Fiction:

1. Донцова Д. Метро до Африки – М.: Эксмо, 2007

2. Донцова Д. Зимнее лето весны – М.: Эксмо, 2007

3. Маринина А. Черный список – М.: Эксмо, 1995

4. Маринина А. Благие намерения – М.: Эксмо, 2009

5. Гармаш-Роффе Т. Королевский сорняк – М.: Эксмо, 2007

6. Устинова Т. Одна тень на двоих – М.: Эксмо, 2005

7. Устинова Т. Отель последней надежды – М.: Эксмо, 2006

8. Устинова Т. Саквояж со светлым будущим – М.: Эксмо, 2005

9. Устинова Т. Близкие Люди – М.: Эксмо, 2003.

10. Archer J. A twist in the tale - Pan Books, 2003

11. Archer J. A Quiver Full Of Arrows - Pan Books, 2003

12. Archer J. False Impression - MacMillan, 2005

13. Archer J. Honor Among Thieves - Harper Collins, 1993

14. Niven J. Amateurs - William Heinemann, 2009

15. Niven J. Kill Your Friends - William Heinemann, 2008

16. Mayle P. A good year - Vintage, 2005

17. Hill R. Good Morning Midnight - Harper Collins, 2004

18. Rendell R. (under pseudonym Barbara Vine) The Chimney Sweeper's Boy - Washington Square Press, 2006

19. Rendell R. No night is too long - Onyx, 2003

20. Rendell R. The Water’s Lovely - Hutchinson, 2006