Gender and Cultural Conditioning of Victorian Small Talk
Abstract
This paper focuses on the influence exercised by the gender and social and cultural factors over women’s speech in the communicative situation of small talk, one of the main situations of the Victorian female discourse. The following structural elements are found to be constant in terms of their cultural dependence: language (standard English of the mid-to-late 19th century), communication mode (everyday discourse), addresser (a female representative of the upper / middle classes), aim (establishing and maintaining contact), tone (neutral) and place (social events). It is proved that the small talk topics arrangement – weather, travelling, arts, literature, food, household items, etc. – depends on the type of communication, a mono- or a cross-gender one. The topics of stylish entertainment, pastimes and health are characteristic of the former and entertainment, pastimes and arts are typical for the latter while “the weather” and “clothes” are mentioned by the Victorian woman least of all in the corresponding communicative situations. Another feature stipulated by the character of the situation under study is the component of only secondary social groups in its symmetrical and asymmetrical variants where the woman has a role of a socialite. On the whole, the communicative situation under consideration is aimed at implementing a positive politeness strategy of “Presuppose, raise, assert common ground” and establishing a community of interacting individuals. The strategy is explicated in the woman’s speech with the help of vocabulary and syntactical units (including formulaic expressions) that denote discussed subjects.
Downloads
References
Arutjunova, N. D. (1990). Diskurs [Discourse]. In: Lingvisticheskij jenciklopedicheskij slovar’ [Encyclopedia of Linguistics]. Moscow, 136–137.
Belikov, V. I., Krysin, L. P. (2001). Sociolingvistika [Sociolinguistics]. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities Publ.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. London, New York, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, E.M., Ralph, P.L., Lerner, R.E. (1986). The life of urban middle class. In: World Civilizations. NY: Norton, Vol. 2, 875–982.
Coupland, J., Coupland, N., Robinson, J. (1993). “How are you?” Negotiating phatic communication. Language in Society, 21, 207–230.
Dijk, T. A. van (2000). Jazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikacija [Language. Cognition. Communication]. Blagoveshchensk: BGK named after I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay.
Formanovskaja, N. I. (2005). Kul’tura obshhenija i rechevoj jetike [Communication Culture and Speaking Etiquette]. Moscow: Ikar Publ.
Il`chenko, O. M. (2002). Ety`ket anglomovnogo naukovogo dy`skursu [The Etiquette of English Scientific Discourse]. Kyiv: Polytechnica Publ.
Karasik, V. I. (2002). Jazyk social’nogo statusa [The Language of Social Status]. Moscow: Gnosis Publ.
Martynyuk, A. P. (2015). Argumentaciya ta sugestiya yak instrumental`ni strategiyi dyskursu [Argumentation an Suggestion as Instrumental Strategies of Discourse]. Movni i konceptual`ni kartyny svitu. – Linguistic and Conceptual World Images, 55, 238–246 (in Ukrainian).
Matjuhina, Ju. V. (2004). Razvitie sistemy faticheskoj metakommunikacii v anglijskom diskurse XVI-XX vekov. Diss. cand filol. nauk [The Development of Phatic Metacommunication System in the English Discourse of the 16th – 20th cc. Cand. philol. sci. diss.] Kharkiv. 227 p. (in Russian).
Morozova, I. I. (2004). Komunikatyvni strategiyi vvichlyvosti u stereotypnij movlennyevij povedinci viktorians`koyi zhinky [Communicative Politeness Strategies in Stereotypic Speech Behaviour of the Victorian Woman. Cand. philol. sci. diss. synopsis]. Kharkiv (in Ukrainian).
Perkin, J. (1993). Victorian Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polyuzhyn, M. M. (2002). Dyskursyvni strategiyi ta organizuyuchi stereotypni vyslovlyuvannya v anglijs`kij movi [Discourse strategies and organizing stereotypic expressions in English]. In: Dyskurs inozemnomovnoyi komunikaciyi [Discourse of Foreign Language Communication]. Lviv, 49–75.
Shevchenko, I. S. (2016). Jevoljucionnye mehanizmy kognitivnoj semantiki [Evolutiomechanisms of cognitive semantics]. Kognicija, kommunikacija, diskurs. – Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 13, 83–93 (in Russian). Available at: 83–93. URL: http://sites.google.com/site/ cognitiondiscourse/home
Shevchenko, I. S., Morozova, E. I. (2003). Diskurs kak myslekommunikativnoe obrazovanie [Discourse a mental and communicative phenomenon]. Visnyk Kharkiv. nats. un-tu imeni V. N. Karazina. – V. N. Karazin Kharkiv. National Univ. Messenger, 586, 33-38 (in Russian).
Simmel, G. (1961). The Sociology of George Simmel. NY: Free Press.
Soloshchuk, L.V. (2006). Verbal`ni ta neverbal`ni aspekty dyskursyvnoyi vzayemodiyi yak vidobrazhennya polikodovoyi pryrody komunikatyvnogo procesu [Verbal and non-verbal aspects of discourse interaction as a communicative process’s polycode nature reflection]. Naukovyj visnyk Skhidnoyevropejs`kogo nacz. un-tu imeni Lesi Ukrayinky. – Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University Scientific Messenger, 19, 233–237 (in Ukrainian).
Sternin, I.A. (2003). Problemy opisanija vezhlivosti kak kommunikativnoj kategorii [Challenges of describing politeness as a communicative category]. Kommunikativnoe povedenie. Vezhlivost’ kak kommunikativnaja kategorija. – Communicative Behaviour. Politeness as a Communicative Category, 17, 22–47 (in Russian).
Vorob’eva, E. M. (2006). Funkcional’nye harakteristiki metakommunikativnyh rechevyh dejstvij. Avtoref. diss. kand. filol. nauk [Functional Characteristics of Metacommunicative Acts. Cand. philol. sci. diss. synopsis]. Volgograd (in Russian).
Wolfson, N. (1981). Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speaker. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, Vol.8, 7–22.
