|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Litera
Reference:
Onufrieva E.S., Tresorukova I.V.
Discursive formulas of response in Modern Greek
// Litera.
2023. ¹ 12.
P. 63-78.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2023.12.69250 EDN: URDYKU URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=69250
Discursive formulas of response in Modern Greek
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2023.12.69250EDN: URDYKUReceived: 01-12-2023Published: 08-12-2023Abstract: The article is dedicated to the study of discursive formulas of response in Modern Greek. Discursive formulas of response, i.e. idioms which are used in speech as a reaction to what was previously said by the interlocutor and which reproduce some of the phonetic properties of the previous utterance, constitute one of the most language-specific layers of phraseology and pose a difficulty for a correct decoding and translation. The aim of the article is to describe the little-studied material of Modern Greek formulas of response, to determine their types and specific properties and to identify typical communicative situations in which they are used. The study is based on the instances of use of such structures in literary works, internet texts, movies and series in Modern Greek, along with data from dictionaries. Methods of structural, semantic, contextual and comparative analysis are used. The findings of the study provide evidence that in Modern Greek there exist structures corresponding to the definition of discursive formulas of response. Eight types of such structures can be distinguished based on the type of the initiating utterance: reactions to a question; reactions to an address; reactions to an expression of agreement or disagreement; reactions to an expression of opinion or an evaluation; reactions to a factual statement; reactions to a greeting, a farewell or a well-wish; reactions to an expression of gratitude; reactions to a directive. It is shown, however, that the key role in every case is played by the actual lexical make-up of the initiating utterances. From the authors’ point of view, what is particularly interesting for the comparative analysis of discursive formulas of response in different languages is the fact that some Modern Greek formulas of response have the form of a curse or of an ill-wish. Keywords: speech formulas, discursive formulas, formulas of response, reactive utterance, initiating utterance, rhyme, phonetic resemblance, curse, phraseology, Modern GreekThis article is automatically translated. 1. Introduction. The concept of speech response formulas and their main characteristics Speech response formulas (RFR) are distinguished in the classification of phraseological units by A. N. Baranov and D. O. Dobrovolsky as a special type of idioms representing "the second of two illocatively related speech acts", illocatively forced by the first speech act and repeating some of its phonetic features [1, pp. 92-93]. In Russian, expressions such as [— Well?] — Wildebeest steering wheels!, [— Where?] — On your beard!, [— Who?] — Grandfather Fir!, in Spanish — [— ?Qu ? pasa?] — ?Un burro por tu casa!, [— ?D?nde?] — ?A la casa del Conde!, in Greek — [— ;] — !, [— ;] — has !. Such structures attract the attention of researchers dealing with phraseology [1, pp. 92-93]; [2, p. 72]; [3, p. 173], paremiology and folklore [4, p. 89]; [5-6;] [7, p. 80], analysis of discourse [8-9]. In relation to expressions of this type, the terms "dialogical idioms" [10], "assonant phraseoreflexions" [11], "response phraseoreflexions" [12], "comic answers" [4, p. 89]; [5], "rhymed pseudo-responses" [8, p. 983-984], " "'folk tales' (translated here and further by the authors of the article) [6]; [7, p. 80], "" 'antelabs' [13]; [14, pp. 65-66]; [14, pp. 174-175], etc. It should be noted that these terms do not fully correlate with each other. Thus, S. Skartsis classifies not only modern Greek phraseological units of the type [— .] — (letters. ‘[— Good.] — Reed and stakes’), but also non—idiomatic one-word replicas [- .] — (‘[— Good morning.] — Good morning’), [— .] — (‘[— Thank you.] — Please’) [14, p. 175]. In existing works, the place of structures correlated with the Russian Federal District in the phraseological fund of the language as a special type of phraseological units is studied [1, pp. 92-93]; [2, p. 72]; [3, p. 173], the specificity of their internal form based on semantically unmotivated phonetic likening to the replica of the interlocutor [15], the possibility of using idiomatic retaliatory remarks as a means of implementing "pedagogical aggression" [8], discursive tactics of abuse [9], language game [10, 16], etc. From the point of view of Sh. V. Khairov, a promising "comparative analysis of such constructions in various languages in a pragmatic aspect against the background of typical speech practices" [10, p. 241]. RFOs can be reactions to questions, as well as to other types of speech acts, for example, a message or greeting (see examples from the Russian language given by A. N. Baranov and D. O. Dobrovolsky: [— They say...] — Chickens are milked!, [— Hello!] — Greetings from the old shoes! [2, p. 72]). It is important that all such expressions function as dependent speech acts, for the appearance of which it is necessary not only the intention of the speaker himself, but also the presence of a certain initiating replica that serves as an incentive for their use. In addition to the illocutionary dependence on the cue-stimulus, RFOs have a sound similarity with its specific lexical content. Characteristic of the Russian Far East is the presence of a rhyme with the lexical composition of the initiating replica (see Greek [—;] — n !, [- Jat - Jat? i ta ?x i ?na aft?!], letters. ‘[— Why?] — Because a cat has one ear!’), repetition of a single word of the initiating replica ([— .] — !, [— I n e mikr?s. — Mikr? i n e to m?ti su!], letters. ‘[— He's small.] — Your little eye!’) or the initial syllable of the word ([— !] — !, [— K iri e! — K eri? ke liv?ni a!], letters. ‘[— Sir!] — Candles and incense!’). The meaning of the RFO can be reduced to the idea of the inappropriateness of the previous speech act of the interlocutor. A. N. Baranov and D. O. Dobrovolsky, characterizing the RFO as phraseological units with almost identical semantic content, explain the possibility of simultaneous coexistence in the language of such a multitude of synonymous constructions by the fact that the image is no less important for communication than the content [2, p. 143]. As a rule, phraseological units of the type in question have a vivid figurative internal form that prevails over their elementary meaning, giving them expressiveness and distinguishing them from possible synonyms. So, in Modern Greek, as a reaction to the question ; ([jat], ‘why?’) a variety of RFOs can be used (for example, v? p [ja na rot ? s es!], letters. ‘to ask you’, n [jat? i ta ?x i ?na aft?!], letters. ‘because the cat has one ear’), which coincide in their meaning (an indication of the inappropriateness of the interlocutor's remark), but differ in the way underlying the internal shape and stylistic characteristics. It is necessary to note the general decrease in the stylistic coloring of the Russian Federal District, which significantly limits the possible scope of their use. Often, RFOs contain references to absurd situations in their internal form (for example, [— ;] — !, [— Jat — Jat? pet ? i to ? at?!], letters. ‘[— Why?] — Because a kitten is flying!’), one or another manifestation of physiology ([— ;] — ? !, [— P u — Ek? pu kl ? ni i alep ?], letters. ‘[— Where?] — Where the fox farts!’) or violent physical actions ([— .] — ?’ !, [— Me l ? ne J?ni. — ?’ ander? su sto tiy?ni!], letters. ‘[— My name is Yannis.] — Put your guts in the pan!’). An additional factor in reducing stylistic coloration is the mandatory presence of rhyme or other type of sound similarity with the initiating replica for the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation is recorded in different languages of the world (see relevant studies on the material of Slavic [10; 17] or Romance languages [18-20]). Some researchers tend to consider such structures to be a universal phenomenon [17], but others point out that the use of these structures is not typical for all languages. Thus, Sh. V. Khairov, speaking about dialogical idioms in Slavic languages, notes: "The previously collected material shows that they are indeed used in this rhymed and rhythmic form in all Slavic languages, however, in different proportions, and if we take the languages of other groups, then there are also such, for example, English, where this form may be absent altogether" [10, p. 242]. Undoubtedly, the Russian Federation is one of the most linguistically specific layers of phraseology of each language and, as a result, presents great difficulty for correct interpretation and adequate translation into another language. Thus, in the Russian language, there are apparently no phraseological correspondences to various Greek RFOs used as a reaction to rejection, such as [— .] - O v? / v? ! ([- ? x i. - Ox i ? na se f ? i / katapi i!], letters. ‘[— No.] — Let the viper eat/swallow you!’). The fact that there are structures in the Modern Greek language that correspond to the definition of the Russian Federation and have the form of a curse is of particular interest in the aspect of comparative analysis of the Russian Federation in various languages. Although there are idioms-performatives in the Russian language expressing the speech act of cursing, they do not have the phonetic characteristics necessary for the Russian Federation and belong to another class of speech formulas (see [2, p. 72]). For the English language, as mentioned above, the use of the Russian Federation is uncharacteristic in general [10, p. 242]. It is significant that the phrase ([?tsi l i to k at t i n], letters. ‘because that's what the kitten wants’), used in Cyprus as an answer to the inappropriate question ; (‘why?'[jat?]), the translation of the song Cypriot music group "Monsieur Doumani" was translated into English literally: , , , , / ' , , , “ ”. — Stop asking for explanations, and don't ask who or why / Don't react, get used to it, that's the way it is, because ‘that's what the kitten wants’ (a translation of the song is available on the band's official website [https://monsieurdoumani.bandcamp.com/track/thats-what-the-kitten-wants ]). Obviously, in such cases, the translation should be accompanied by an additional linguistic and cultural commentary. Specific to a particular language and culture may also be words and phrases that can become a "trigger" for use in the speech of a particular RFD. A striking example here can be culturally specific forms of address that do not have a direct lexical or functional analogue in another language. So, for example, the Russian Federation (v? / v? ’p)! ([M?ra ke kas? ? a (na se pi?si / na su r ? i)!], lit. ‘nightmare and baldness (to happen to you / to be found on you)’) is used in Modern Greek as a reaction to the use of the familiar address / ([mor ? / mor i]), which does not have a direct lexical correspondence in Russian. The interpretation of the Russian Federation is complicated by the fact that they form part of the phraseological fund, poorly represented in dictionaries. V. T. Bondarenko also draws attention to this, examining the response phraseological replicas in the Russian language: "[O]b regarding full representation in dictionaries and especially about the lexicographic characteristics of the response phraseological replicas, it is not yet necessary to speak" [12, p. 645]. The purpose of our work is to identify the types of Modern Greek RFO, identify the specific features of this type of phraseological units in the Modern Greek language, as well as analyze typical communicative situations of their use. The objectives of the study are as follows: — to identify structures in the Modern Greek language that correspond to the definition of the Russian Federal District; — to study the contexts in which Modern Greek RFOs are used, and to analyze the illocutionary type and lexical composition of initiating replicas; — to analyze the communicative situations in which the Modern Greek RFOs of individual groups are used, and identify typical situations of their use. The material for the study is cases of the use of the Russian Federation in works of fiction, Internet texts, films and TV series in modern Greek, as well as data from dictionaries, mainly the online dictionary of Greek slang slang.gr [21] and the "Dictionary of Folk and Peripheral language" by G. Katos [22].
2. Types of speech response formulas in the Modern Greek language An analysis of the contexts in which Modern Greek RFOs are used allows us to identify several groups of such expressions in the Modern Greek language in accordance with the type of initiating replica. · Reactions to the question (1) — , -; . — ?’ ! . ; (?. , « ») ‘— Why are you hitting me, mastro-Vangelis? I tell him. — Because of the roller! — he tells me angrily. — Do you realize that you have become a burden to us?’ [— Jat me klotss, mastro-Vangli — Ja t’ and!] · Reactions to treatment (2) — ?, ! — ! ! (the film "N ") ‘Ah, Lady Ephtalia! — Candles and incense! I'm a young lady!’ [— O, tin kira fala! — Keri ke livnia!] · Reactions to consent, disagreement, refusal (3) — , ; — . — ! (TV series "O? ", episode " ") - Can I tell you about the thriller, what happened next? — No. - May the viper swallow you!’ [— ?xi! — Oxi? na se katapi?!] · Reactions to opinion, assessment (4) « ;» « , […]» (?. , « ») '"Where did you find this little one?" "Your little eye, he's your age [...]"' [— Pu ton vr?kate aft?n to mikr — Mikr? ?ne to m?ti su!] · Reactions to the message (5) — «»; — ! — ? ! ! (TV series " " episode "the that is love") ‘— Did I say the name "Konstantinos" five times? — Six! — To make your ass sparkle! Come on, get out of here.’ [— ksi! — O klos sas na fksi!] · Reactions to greetings, goodbyes, wishes (6) O?MAN: T?! Z ; […]. A! KAPA?KIOZH?: . (?. , «? ») OSMAN: — What? Are you also asking for money? Go home and tell my daughter to feed you [...]. Goodbye! KARAGHIOSIS: May your eyes pop out.’ [— Ado! — Na su vun ta mtia ke ta o!] · Reactions to gratitude (7) µ . «µ». — µ , ? , ?µ , ? ' . (?. , «») Camille blushed deeply and made an attempt to smile. She added, "Mercy." "Your nose is pickled,— Euterpe said very softly, but everyone heard her, and Clio kicked her under the table.’ [— Mers?! — I m?ti su turs?!] · Reactions to the urge (8) — . — ; ! — ! (?. , « IV») ‘— Everything will be fine next year. — Really? Swear it! — With your underpants!’ [— Orksu! — Ma to vrak su!] In most of the contexts we have studied, the appearance of RFOs in speech serves to directly and even rudely indicate the inappropriateness of the interlocutor's specific words or his actions and behavior in general. Using the RFR, the speaker demonstrates his rejection of an inappropriate or undesirable question from a communication partner, inappropriate treatment of himself, an unsatisfactory response to a request, an inadequate assessment of an object or situation, etc. The reason for using the RFR may also be the peculiarities of the interlocutor's speech behavior, for example, repeated, annoying repetition of any words by him. N. G. Bragina and I. A. Sharonov, considering the use of rhymed pseudo-responses as one of the ways to implement "pedagogical" aggression, note: "Choosing an "empathic" strategy tries to neutralize the interlocutor's mistake, and choosing a strategy of "pedagogical" aggression focuses on it in order to teach the interlocutor to be more careful and attentive in the future" [8, p. 976]. The use of the RFO can be caused not only by the communicative error of the interlocutor, but also by the lack of cooperation of the speaker himself — his unwillingness to participate in communication, hostility towards the interlocutor or lack of trust with him. Of course, the degree of aggression in each specific communicative situation is determined not so much by the fact of using RFOs and their stylistic characteristics, as by the conditions of communication and the nature of relations between communicants. In Greek household communication, RFOs can be used in a playful way, for example, in children communicating with each other or parents communicating with a small child. Nevertheless, such structures are potentially conflicting communication strategies, as evidenced by their dictionary interpretations. So, even the expression ? ‘because a cat has one ear’, common in children's speech (online slang dictionary slang.gr reports that this is one of the well-known expressions that modern native Greek speakers get acquainted with even at preschool age [21]), has in the dictionary of G. Katos the definition of "an aggressive or ironic response to someone who asks us with surprise "why" [...] when we do not want to give much explanation" [22]. The expression v? p () ‘to ask you’ is interpreted in the online dictionary slang.gr is like this: "We say this in irritation when we no longer have an answer and we want to shut the interlocutor's mouth and stop the conversation" [21]. It is noteworthy that, as already noted above, many modern Greek RFOs have the form of a curse or a wish for evil — in full or reduced form. This is typical for most types of Modern Greek RFOs, with the exception of those that are a reaction to the question. See, for example: [— !] — ( )! ([— K?rie!] — Keri ? ke liv ? nia (na su an ? psun)!, letters. ‘[— My lord!] — Candles and incense (to be lit for you)!’) or [— .] - O (v? / v? / v? )! ([— ?xi!] — Oxi ? (na se f ? i / na se katapi i / na se var ? si an ? mesa sta m ? tia)!, letters. ‘[— No!] — A viper (to be eaten / swallowed / stung between the eyes)!’). We also find confirmation of this observation in some dictionary interpretations of the Greek RFO. Thus, the RFO 'candles and incense' is interpreted in the dictionary of D. Dimitrakos as "a curse, usually [used] as an angry response to those who repeat the word "lord"" [23, p. 4328], and the RFO 'nightmare and baldness' is interpreted in the dictionary of G. Katos as "a mild curse against someone who responded to us with an insulting, disparaging or indifferent [treatment]."[22] S. Trachilis, using the term "anti—lab" in relation to structures related to the Russian Federal District, writes: "Anti-lab is a common phenomenon among curses, but it occurs when the cursing person, being in anger because of the answer or word he hears, grabs the same word or any consonant with it and Starting from this starting point, builds a curse. In this way, someone who is in anger or indignation is provided, on the one hand, an improvised clue for their verbal expression, and on the other hand, consonance, or parechesis, sounds in some sense like a slap in response to a slap, a blow in response to a blow" [13, p. 376]. S. Skartsis also draws attention to the typical use of "soft, funny curses or swear phrases" as anti-lab in modern Greek [14, p. 66]. The study of the illocutionary types of replicas that serve as an incentive for the use of Greek RFOs is important in order to demonstrate the wide range of functioning of RFOs in dialogical speech in Greek, as well as to show that the composition of this subclass of phraseological units in Greek is not limited only to reactions to questions, but also includes reactions to statements of other types: informative messages, evaluative statements, etc. It is important to emphasize that replicas of different types can serve as an incentive to use the same RFR. For example, the Russian Federation ([Barbari ? ke T ? nezi], lit. ‘Berbers and Tunisia') can be used both as a reaction to the appeals of ([b ? rbas], ‘uncle’), ([bab ? s], ‘papa’), and as a reaction to the evaluative ([v ? rvaros], ‘barbarian'). Cm. excerpt from the book A. Sevastakis "": — ... — , that will ! ! ! ‘— A barbarian, not a man… — Get out of here to get dressed, she'll also call me a barbarian! Berbers and Tunisia! Ungrateful!’. The expression ([keri? ke liv?nia], lit. 'candles and incense') is used, according to the dictionary of the Athenian Academy, "as an expression of discontent, indignation at the annoying repetition of the address "" ['lord'], "" ['mistress'] or the words "" ['and']" [24, p. 817]. Similar information about the expression is given in the dictionary of Triandafillidis: "an angry response to someone who repeats with annoying frequency the words "" ['and'] and "" ['lord']" [25]. At the same time, the words [k i rie] / [kir i a] combine with the word [ke] only the sound appearance — the presence of the syllable [ki] / [ke]. From this, it can be concluded that the key role in the case of the Russian Federation is played not by the type of the previous statement, but by the specific lexical content of this statement and, in particular, the presence of certain lexical "triggers" in the interlocutor's remark. By their nature, RFOs primarily represent sound associations with specific words or combinations of words, fixed in the mind of a native speaker. N. Piotoyannaki, in an article devoted to school phrases-"gags", writes about the expression [— !] — ? ! ([— ksi! — O k ? los su na f ? ksi!], letters. ‘— Six! — To make your ass sparkle!'): "If we accidentally asked a classmate with a watch how many minutes the call would be in, and he answered — "In six", this phrase flew out of our mouths before we had time to think. Come on, buddy, you're trying your luck yourself. Say "seven", say "five", name any other number, after all!" [26]. We also see the importance of a communication partner pronouncing a certain word-a "trigger" to activate the RFR in other situations of children's communication, when the speaker himself asks his interlocutor to pronounce the right word outside of any context. Speaking of the Russian Federation [— !] — ! ([— Aeropl ? no! — Pat ? o g ? zi ke se kl ? no!], lit. ‘— The plane! — I step on the gas and fart at you!’) N. Piotoyannaki writes: "Of course, no one uttered the word "airplane" just out of the blue. There was always a mini-dialogue like "Say "airplane"", "Why?"Well, say it once," and after a hundred persuasions, the interlocutor came to meet you, and you were over the moon with happiness and answered what you wanted to say so much" [26]. So, RFOs demonstrate to a greater extent a connection with a particular specific word or combination of words that is part of the interlocutor's replica and has the appropriate associative potential. At the same time, the reasons for using the RFD in each specific case may vary.
3. Modern Greek answer formulas used as a reaction to a question In this section, we will look at the modern Greek RFOs, which are a reaction to the question, and analyze the communicative situations in which they are used. Reactions to the question constitute an extensive group of RFOs in modern Greek. Here is an example of some of them: [— ;] — ()! [— Jat — Ja na rots (es)!], ‘— Why? — To ask you!’ [— ;] — ! [— Jat — Jat klni to ?at!], ‘— Why? — Because a kitten farts!’ (The corpus of elTenTen19 texts also contains two contexts in which this RFO is used as a reaction to the interrogative ; [ ila ?], ‘that is?’) [— ;] — ? ! [— Jat — Jat i ta ?xi ?na aft!], ‘— Why? — Because a cat has one ear!’ [— ;] — ( ) ( / / ) ( )! [— Jat — Ja to and (tu arali) (pu ?xi ?o / tseris / oxt trpes) (sto aft)!], ‘— Why? — Because of the roller (loom) (which has two / four / eight holes in the ear)!'(In the newspaper "" from 17.03.1935 (place of publication — the island of Lesbos) I found the option [— ;] — ?' that !, [— Jat — Ja t’ and pu tlin tu pan!], ‘— Why? — Because of the roller where the fabric is wound!’ [http://dspace.cplm.gr/bitstream/handle/123456789/15589/TRIVOLOS_17_03_1935.pdf]. This expression is also mentioned by P. Papadellis, describing the dialect of the inhabitants of the village of Anemotya (island of Lesbos) [27]) [— ;] — ( !) / ! [— Ti — Tir (ke psom) / Psom ? ke tir!], ‘What? — Cheese (and bread) / Bread and cheese!’ [— ;] — ! [— Ti i ne aft — Manit ? ri ma ? ik ?!], ‘— What is it? — The magic mushroom!’ [— ;] — ! [— Ti les — Psom ki elis!], ‘— What are you saying? — Bread and olives!’ [— ;] — ? ! [— Pu — Ek ? pu kl ? ni i alep!], ‘Where? — Where the fox farts!’ [— ;] — ! ( ) [— Pis — Afts! (?na mi??n)!], ‘— Who? — He! (One zero)!’ The presented RFOs differ in their origin, stylistic characteristics, the image underlying the internal form, as well as the frequency of use. So, the Russian Federation [— ;] — ! ([— Jat — Ja to and ?], ‘— Why? — Because of the roller!) it was recorded in dictionaries already in the XIX century . In the collection of stable expressions "O " (1876), the expression is given the following interpretation: "With this answer, we ridicule the fools who ask us for an explanation ("why?”) things that do not require explanation. ['commodity roller'] is one of the parts of a loom" [28, p. 103]. The expression in question can be found in various Greek literary works of the early twentieth century, but at present it is apparently outdated and practically not used. On the website of the Greek web forum Retromania, the phrase was named by users among the expressions that, in their opinion, will no longer be heard: [www.retromaniax.gr/threads/------.3191/page-16]. Another RFO is [— ;] — ! ([— Ti i ne aft — Manit ? ri ma ? ik ?!], ‘— What is it? — The magic mushroom!’) — owes its appearance to a series of commercials for Airwick home fragrance, broadcast on Greek television in the 1990s (see for example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKlaGMq7bk ]. The advertisement showed a flavor resembling a mushroom in its shape, and the slogan "magic mushroom" sounded. On the relation of the expression [— ;] — ! The online slang dictionary points to the advertising of Airwick products.gr, which also informs that this expression is used by preschool children [21]. The use of some other RFOs is limited to specific regions. So, the Russian Federation [— ;] — (v)! ([- Jat - Jat ? tsi ? ? li to katt ?(n)!], ‘— Why? — Because that's what the kitten wants!’) and [— ;] — ! ([— Pu — Stin tr ? pa tu alup!], ‘Where? — In the fox's hole!’) are used in Cyprus. Also of interest are the rhymed answers, which represent the author's occasionalisms. In the novel by M. Lundemis " ?' " we find the rhymed answer [— ' ;]— !, [— J'a ft — Ja tu sk i lu to kaft ?!], letters. ‘Is that why? — Because of the hot dog!’. The expression [— ;] — !, [— Ti — Ti ke t i kfinik!], letters. ‘What? — Like a pumpkin patch!' in Z. Zatel's novel " ". The purpose of interrogative cues-stimuli is to obtain information about the objective world: the purpose, the reason for something, the object, the subject, the location, etc. As uninformative replicas, "semantic empty flowers", according to the figurative characteristic of T. M. Shkapenko [11, p. 51], — The Russian Federal District does not contain information about the objective world. N. Politis calls the Greek expression ?' ‘because of the cushion, which have four holes’ nothing tells response [29, p. 324-325]. The analysis of the contexts we have collected in which the RFOs of the group in question are used allows us to identify several typical situations of their use. The speaker does not have the requested information and cannot give an answer on the merits of the question (9) — , , ; — , ? . ? , , ! ? . ? - . , ’ […] , : — ;… ; (?. , «») ‘— Why, Father, are the birds singing? "Because of the roller, which has two holes," the birdman replied. — No, really, tell me! Zafirula repeated. Kir-Anastasis did not answer any more. However, he thought about it, and after a long time, his voice was heard, as if he was talking to himself: — Why do birds sing? Do I really know why the birds are singing?’ P. Papadellis reports that the expression ?' (j) 'because of the roller where the cloth is wound' was a disapproving answer to the question and was used by those who "who wanted to evade, protest or did not know what to answer" [28]. The speaker has the information requested by the interlocutor, but believes that the answer to the question is obvious in itself or should already be known to the interlocutor. This is the most common situation of using the RFO of the first group. We find it in the largest number of contexts that we have selected for analysis. (10) «, ». «;» « ? ! ! ’ !» (?. , « ») "So swing and hit." "Where?" "Where the fox farts! On the head, well! I'm dying of pain after all!"' In this case, we see that the speaker using the Russian Federation expresses his dissatisfaction with the naivety, lack of foresight of his communication partner, the fact that he is not able to independently assess what is happening and asks a question, the answer to which is obvious from the situation itself. In other contexts, the dissatisfaction of the speaker using the RFR can be attributed to the fact that the interlocutor, asking a question, already knows the answer to it. This violates the condition of sincerity, as one of the important requirements for the success of a speech act. The use of the word ‘done’ in the example (11) is characteristic: (11) — ! — ; ? , . — ! , ; ; (?. , «--») ‘You won't put on makeup like that! — And why? Sofia asks mockingly, rather approvingly examining the black zigzag on her eyelid. — Because a kitten is flying! Are you still asking, crazy? Do you want me to have problems?’ In this type of communicative situation, after using the Russian language, the speaker, as a rule, gives an informative answer to the question asked by the interlocutor (examples 10-11). An informative answer may not follow if the speaker believes that he has already informed the interlocutor of the necessary information, and does not want to repeat: (12) — , , . ? . — ; — ! ! (TV series "O? ", episode " ;") "Listen, madam, now I'm going to talk to you like a woman to a woman. I am Spyros' wife. - what? — Bread and cheese! What did you hear!’ Cf. interpretation of the phrase ! in the dictionary of G. Katos: "an ironic response to someone who is surprised, saying "what?" in response to what we tell him" [22]. The slang dictionary.gr indicates the possibility of using the RFO in case of a delayed reaction of the interlocutor or his absent - mindedness: "the classic answer is when, after a long story about an incident, the interlocutor, who is not actually listening, finally asks the narrator, "huh? what?"" [21]. The speaker has the requested information, but believes that the interlocutor does not have the authority to request it, or is himself limited in the ability to respond (13) — , , ; ? . — , ? . (?. , « ») ‘Why didn't you go with them, you naughty boy? Shiraino Kurtesaki asked him. —I wish you'd ask,— Papos replied defiantly.’ In this case, the speaker is in a situation of forced communication. Using the RFR, he makes it clear to his interlocutor that the question is inappropriate, since the interlocutor is not in a trusting relationship with the speaker and, therefore, does not have the authority to request information. The RFO is used for a joke or a game On the Greek website , the motherhood in the comments to the article "Ten things we want to say to their children, but don't say" readers talk about their experience in the use of expressions like [— ;] — ? has ! ‘[— Why?] — Because a cat has one ear!'in communication with children: "They [children] also laugh a lot at this and understand that I tell them this as a joke, and then they specifically ask me questions so that I answer this way, and laugh" (see the article " , ": [https://eimaimama.gr/2013/06/deka-pragmata-pou-theloume-na-poume-sta-paidia-mas.html /]). Obviously, in a game situation, there may be no real request for information from the questioner.
4. Conclusion The article demonstrated that in the Modern Greek language there are structures corresponding to the definition of the Russian Federal District. The study of the contexts in which this type of phraseological units is used in the Modern Greek language has allowed us to identify eight types of replicas that provoke their use in speech: questions; appeals; replicas of agreement or disagreement; replicas expressing an opinion or assessment; messages; replicas of greetings, goodbyes, wishes; replicas expressing gratitude; motivational replicas. Despite the wide range of RFOs functioning in communication and the variety of types of speech acts preceding their use, the key role for RFOs is played by the specific lexical content of the initiating replicas and, in particular, the presence of certain lexical "triggers" in these replicas. In most cases, if we exclude cases of playful use of the Russian Federation, which often does not require any context, the use of such phraseological units serves to indicate the inappropriateness of the interlocutor's words. Using the example of RFOs, which are reactions to a question, the article highlighted several typical communicative situations in which modern Greek RFOs are used. An important result of the study was the observation that many RFOs in Modern Greek have the form of curses or wishes for evil — in full or reduced form. This phenomenon, apparently, should be considered linguistic-specific. References
1. Baranov, A. N., & Dobrovol’skii, D. O. (2008). Aspects of the Theory of Phraseology. Moscow: Znak.
2. Baranov, A. N., & Dobrovol’skii, D. O. (2014). Fundamentals of Phraseology. Moscow: FLINTA: Nauka. 3. Roizenzon, L. I. (1973). Lectures on General and Russian Phraseology. Samarkand. 4. Permyakov, G. L. (1988). Fundamentals of Structural Paremiology. Moscow: Nauka. 5. Boitsova, O. Yu. (2010). «Kon’ v pal’to»: structure and functions of joking replies. Zhivaya starina, 3, 9-11. 6. Varvounis, M. G. (2007). Abusive, swearing and derisive folk responses. Laografia, 41, 139-144. 7. Doulaveras, A. N. (2020). Folklore of Artistic Folk Discourse. Tradition and Modernity. Volume 1. Thessaloniki: K. & M. Stamoulis. 8. Bragina, N. G., & Sharonov, I. A. (2019). «Pedagogical» aggression in Russian everyday communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23, 4, 975-993. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-4-975-993 9. Chesnokov, I. I. (2014). The discoursive tactic of desecration: indirect forms of presentation. Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 3(21), 98-107. 10. Khairov, Sh. V. (2019). – Kto? – Kon’ v pal’to! Slavonic dialogue idioms as language play and verbal aggression. Ehmotsional'naya sfera cheloveka v yazyke i kommunikatsii: sinkhroniya i diakhroniya – 2019. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 241-247. 11. Shkapenko, T. M. (2014). Functional and pragmatic features of assonance phraseological reflexes. Vestnik Baltiiskogo federal'nogo universiteta im. I. Kanta, 8, 49-54. 12. Bondarenko, V. T. (2009). Russian phraseological replies as lexicographic object. Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury, 2(24), 644-648. 13. Trachilis, S. (1921). The antilabe among curses and proverbs. Laografia, 8, 376-378. 14. Skartsis, S. L. (1999). Minor Forms of Folk Literature. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. 15. Baranov, A. N., & Dobrovol’skii, D. O. (2009). The principles of the semantic description of phraseology. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 6, 21-34. 16. Bondarenko, V. T. (2012). A reply as a source of a linguistic game. Uchen³ zapiski Tavr³is’kogo nats³onal’nogo un³versitetu ³m. V. ². Vernads’kogo. Ser³ya: F³lolog³ya. Sots³al’n³ komun³kats³i, 25(64), 2(1), 286-289. 17. Blinova, O. V. (2014). Dialogical ping-pong: Russian, Ukranian, Polish rhymed response formulae. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Soznanie i rechevaya deyatel’nost’: sotsio- i lingvokul’turologicheskie aspekty». 26 – 27 fevralya 2014 goda. Saint Petersburg: Universitetskie obrazovatel’nye okruga. pp. 113-119. 18. Ortega Madrid, J. (2017). Fraseología burlesca en el habla de Cartagena. Revista de folklore, 420, 23-44. 19. Luque Nadal, L. (2008). Sobre los límites de la fraseología. Dichos y locuciones pragmático-conversacionales de carácter burlesco en español. Language Design, 10, 87-106. 20. Salvanyà, J. (2011). Els jocs de llengua en la infantesa: les rimes. Llengua nacional, 74, 11-12. 21. Online Dictionary of Greek Slang. Slang.gr. Retrieved from https://www.slang.gr/. 22. Katos, G. (2016). Dictionary of our folk and peripheral language. Thessaloniki: Kentro Ellinikis Glossas. Retrieved from http://georgakas.lit.auth.gr/dictionaries/index.php/anazitisi/g-katou. 23. Dimitrakos, D. (1964). Great Dictionary of the Greek Language. In 15 vols. Athens: Domi. 24. Practical Dictionary of Modern Greek. (2014). Charalampakis, Ch.G. (Ed.). Athens: Ethniko Typografeio. 25. Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek. (2017). Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Retrieved from https://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/. 26. Piotogiannaki, N. (2021). If you used these phrases in school too, then you had a cool childhood! Neopolis.gr, 10.05. Retrieved from https://www.neopolis.gr/tapes-sto-scholio/ 27. Papadellis, P. (2016). Introduction to the local dialect of Anemotia. Retrieved from https://panagiotispapadellis.blogspot.com/2016/06/h.html 28. Kavadias, G. (1876). The Practical Speech. Corfu: Kadmos. 29. Politis, N. G. (1900). Studies in the life and language of the Greek people. Paroemias. Vol. 2. Athens: P.D. Sakellarios.
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
