The interlocutors’ intentions and reactions within the dialogue: implication and verbalization

Issue 55, 2024

Irina Suima, Natalia Diachok, Nataliia Vlasenko, Anastasiia Plakhtii

Received 07.08.2023, Revised 14.12.2023, Accepted 18.03.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/55.2024.272de0

Abstract

Relevance. The responsive sentences of heuristic type make the communication easier for the its participants, but in real life the other types of answers, which are containing new lexical units, are more sufficient, more pragmatically oriented and more important for the process of the communicative interaction.

Purpose. The article deals with a wide range of reply variants within the question–answer system.

Methodology. The study focuses on the interrelation of the intention revealing a communicative task in the different types of sentences with the reaction expressed in the responsive sentence.

Results. Analyzing both structure and semantics of the heuristic responsive sentences and their connections with the utterances of interlocutors’ intents in the scope of the English prose fiction, the authors give a meta-description of these answer-forms that correlates their structural, lexical, semantic and functional features defined in the multilingual dimension and realized as the typology criteria with their peculiarities manifesting the systematic characteristics of the English language.

Conclusions. The investigation reveals that in most cases the syntactic construction formed to react verbally to the interrogative sentence as well as to the declarative and imperative ones is not limited only to the response “Yes/No”, but extends to a number of words or even phrases uttering the answer.

Keywords: communication; question-answer discourse; intentional sentence; responsive sentence; heuristic responsive; speech act

Suggested citation

Suima I, Diachok N, Vlasenko N, Plakhtii A. The interlocutors’ intentions and reactions within the dialogue: implication and verbalization. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(55):2720-2728. DOI: 10.54919/physics/55.2024.272de0

Download article

References

  1. Carnie A. Syntax. Oxford: University Press; 2001.
  2. Crystal D. Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: University Press; 1995.
  3. Cummins J. Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Ling Educ. 2014;26:145-154.
  4. Messina A, Crescimanno C, Cuccì G, Caraci F, Signorelli MS. Cell Adhesion Molecules in the Pathogenesis of Schizophrenia. Fol Med. 2023;65(5):707-712.
  5. Beliutina JuA. Pragmatic and sociolinguistic determinants of violations in the communicative act of apology. Cult Text. 2007;7:144-148.
  6. Vezhbitska А. Speech acts. New Foreig Ling. 1985;16:251–276.
  7. Brown P. Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.
  8. Gordon D, Lakoff D. Fundamentals of speech communication. New Foreig Ling. 1985;16:276– 302.
  9. Tufanova YuV. Linguistic politeness as a way to maintain the balance of interests of communicants in the speech situation of apology. Bull Bashkir State Uni. Series: Roman-German Phil. 2010;11:102-106.
  10. Raitmar R. The pragmatics of an apology: a comparative study on the material of the Russian language and Russian culture. Moscow: Nauka; 2003.
  11. Leshchenko MV, Semko V. Thermal characteristics of the external walling made of cold-formed steel studs and polystyrene concrete. Magaz Civil Eng. 2015;60(8):44-55.
  12. Alkaabi AK, King JC. Benchmarking COMSOL Multiphysics Single-Subchannel Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of a TRIGA Reactor with RELAP5 Results and Experimental Data. Sci Tech Nucl Install. 2019;2019:4375782.
  13. Kang L, Tan Ch-H, Zhao J. Do cognitive and affective expressions matter in purchase conversion? A live chat perspective. J Associat Info Sci Tech. 2020;71(4):436–449. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24254.
  14. Ajabshir ZF. The Effect of Teachers` Scaffolding and Peers` Collaborative Dialogue on Speech Act Production in Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Groups. Iran J Lang Teach Res. 2020;8(1):45–61.
  15. Cousens Ch. Are ableist insults secretly slurs? Lang Sci. 2020;77:101252. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101252;
  16. Franco PL. Speech Act Theory and the Multiple Aims of Science. Phil Sci. 2019;86(5):1005–1015. DOI: 10.1086/705452;
  17. Johnson-Laird PN. Possibilities as the foundation of reasoning. Cognit. 2019;193:103950. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.019;
  18. Evans N. Nen assentives and the phenomenon of dialogic parallelisms. Pract Theor Empiric Pract: Ling Perspect. 2012;40:159–183.
  19. Gallo CM. Building Discursive Identity: The Case of Question-Answer-Follow up System in Two Interviews. Rev Roumain Ling – Roman Rev Ling. 2016;61(3):265–284.
  20. Wood A, Rodeghero P, Armaly A, McMillan C. Detecting Speech Act Types in Developer Question/Answer Conversations during Bug Repair. In: Esec/Fse`18: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 491-502). New York: Assoc Computing Machinery; 2018. DOI: 10.1145/3236024.3236031;
  21. Santana KC. The ironic impoliteness speech act on digital social network Facebook. Soletr. 2020;39:50–77.
  22. van Dijk TA. Prejudice in Discourse: An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 1984.
  23. Searle J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP; 1969.
  24. Pavilionis RJ. On Meaning and Understanding. Acta Phil Fennic. 1985;38:117-126.
  25. Brown K. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: University Press; 2005.
  26. Leech G, Deucher M, Hoogenraad R. English Grammar for today. Oxford: University Press; 1982.
  27. Arutiunova ND. Language and world of the human being. Moscow: Nauka; 1999.
  28. Paducheva EV. Pragmatic aspects of dialogical integrity. Moscow: Prospekt; 1982.
  29. Kuzin AN. Communicatively oriented connection of illocutive tactics of question-answer dialogue. Ling. Bull BDU. Series. 2006;4(3):63-68.
  30. Spytska L. Symptoms and main features of personality formation of a psychopath. Arch Psych Psych. 2024;26(1):34-43.
  31. Vinantova NV. Questions as a type of speech acts. 2008. http://www.rusnauka.com/13_NPT_2008/Philologia/31431.doc.htm
  32. Belyaev NI. Principle of politeness in interrogative speech acts. Foreig Lang Sch. 1990;1:43-47.
  33. Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. La question. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon; 1991.
  34. Piskunov VG, Gorik AV, Cherednikov VN. Modeling of transverse shears of piecewise homogeneous composite bars using an iterative process with account of tangential loads 2. Resolving equations and results. Mech Compos Mater. 2000;36(6):445-452.
  35. Vishnu R, Selvakumar RD, Alkaabi AK, Vengadesan S. Active vortex generation and enhanced heat transfer in a 3D minichannel by Onsager–Wien effect. Appl Therm Eng. 2023;233:121064.
  36. Lehnert T, Krolak-Schwerdt S, Hörstermann T. Explicit and implicit speaker evaluations and their differential attitudinal determinants. Lang Sci. 2018;69:68-79.
  37. Rappaa A, Kok-Sing T. Integrating disciplinary-specific genre structure in discourse strategies to support disciplinary literacy. Ling Educ. 2018;43:1-12.
  38. Zinovyeva LA, Omeljanenko VI. All phrases of the English. Rostov-on-Don: Nauka; 2012.
  39. Becker R. Materials for English Historical Linguistics: an Annotated Bibliography of Concordances. J Eng Ling. 1978;12(1):1-11.
  40. Kumar R, Yunus R. Linguistics in Language Education. Contemp Educ Dialog. 2014;11(2):197-220.
  41. Fialko NM, Prokopov VG, Meranova NO, Borisov YuS, Korzhik VN, Sherenkovskaya GP. Thermal physics of gasothermal coatings formation processes. State of investigations. Fiz Khim Obrabot Mater. 1993;(4):83-93.
  42. Zhumadiluli AD, Panfilov IV, Ismailova JA. Improvement of uniform oil displacement technology on the example of Kazakhstani fields. J Environ Manag Tour. 2018;9(3):542-552.
  43. Li S, Said F, O’Neill B, Ancarno C, Niksic M. Using linguistic methods in clinical communication education. MedEdPub. 2016;5:119.
  44. Gurzynski-Weiss L. Systemic Functional Linguistics as applicable linguistics. Ling Educ. 2011;22(3):300-301.
  45. Hudson R, Sheldon N. Linguistics at School: The UK Linguistics Olympiad. Lang Ling Comp. 2013;7(2):91–104.
  46. Messina A, Caraci F, Aguglia E, Signorelli MS. Catatonia-like behavior and immune activation: a crosstalk between psychopathology and pathology in schizophrenia. Ann Gen Psych. 2023;22(1):39.
  47. Korzhik VN. Theoretical analysis of the conditions required for rendering metallic alloys amorphous during gas-thermal spraying. III. Transformations in the amorphous layer during the growth process of the coating. Sov Pow Metall Metal Ceram. 1992;31(11):943-948.
  48. Spytska L. Anxiety and depressive personality disorders in the modern world. Acta Psych. 2024;246:104285.
  49. Korzhyk V, Illiashenko E, Khaskin V, Peleshenko S, Perepychay A. Forecasting the results of hybrid laser-plasma cutting of carbon steel. East-Eur J Enter Tech. 2020;2(1-104):6-15.
  50. Bannikov DO. Analysis of the causes of accidents of steel capacitive structures for bulk materials. Metall Min Ind. 2011;3(5):243-249.
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua