Email this article 
Speech Act Specifics of Communication Harmonization within the Social Work Discourse
- Authors: Bredikhina Y.I.1
-
Affiliations:
- Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute
- Issue: No 3(897) (2025)
- Pages: 48-55
- Section: Linguistics
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2542-2197/article/view/286472
- ID: 286472
Cite item
Abstract
The strategy of harmonizing non-cooperative communicative interaction is a key condition for achieving the dual goals of the boundary social work discourse. The purpose of this study is to consider and analyze the communicative action levels’ speech act specifics in the non-cooperative social work discourse. Based on the interactional and discursive-modus analysis of microcontexts representing the social services’ agents and clients interaction, we determine the most effective forms of locution, transferring private and goal-centric harmonizing illocutions. The following are recognized as frequent and having the maximum potential for consolidating communicative efforts: assertives, commissives, questives, promisives, performatives, declaratives, appealatives, metacommunicative phatic markers.
About the authors
Yulia Igorevna Bredikhina
Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute
Author for correspondence.
Email: bredichinajulia@yandex.ru
Master of Linguistics, PhD Student of Department of Russian, Native Languages and Linguodidactics
Russian FederationReferences
- Dijk van T. A. (2000). Yazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikaciya = Language. Cognition. Commenication. Мoscow: J. А. Baudouin de Courtenay BGK. (In Russ.)
- Geuhman, O. Ya., Nadeina, Т. М. (2003). Verbal communication. Мoscow: INFRA-М. (In Russ.)
- Alfyorov, A. V. et. al. (2020). Interactional cognitive semiotics: the notional components of the method (interpretant, relevance, ad-hoc concepts) / A. V. Alfyorov, Ye. Yu. Kusstova, G. E. Popova, I. G. Tamrazova. Pyatigorsk State University Bulletin, 3, 30–36. (In Russ.)
- Bubnova, G. I. (2024). Linguocognitive analysis of a scientific text: hybridization under the influence of multichannel generation. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 13 (894), 23–30. (In Russ.)
- Popova, T. P. (2015). Characteristics of institutional discourse. Historical and Social Educational Ideas, 7–6(2), 295–301. (In Russ.)
- Karasik, V. I. (2002). Языковый круг: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena. (In Russ.)
- Foucault, M. (1996). The will to truth: beyond knowledge, power and sexuality. Moscow: Kastal, 1996. (In Russ.).
- Austin, J. (2006). Three ways to spill ink. Philosophical works. Moscow: Aletejya. (In Russ.).
- Searle, J. R. (1986). What is a speech act. New trends in foreign linguistics, 17, 151–194. (In Russ.).
- Bredikhina, Yu. I. (2023). Anthropocentric and cognitive-communicative bases for the delimitation of relevance and pertinence in the discourse of social work. Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute Bulletin, 2(20), 28–37. (In Russ.)
- Bredikhin, S. N. (2023). The theory of non-cooperative games in generation and interpretation of utterances in institutional discourse. Professional Communication: Topical Issues of Linguistics and Methodology, 16, 50–58. (In Russ.)
- Guseynova, I. A., Gorozhanov, A. I. (2024). Implementation of the concept of “dialogue on equal terms” at the university. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and Teaching, 3(852), 17–23. (In Russ.)
- Kountsevitch, S. E. (2005). Psychological aspects of political discourse. Minsk State Linguistic University Bulletin. Philology, 4(20), 37–50. (In Russ.)
- Bredikhina, Yu. I. (2024). Ways to manage institutional discourse through the introduction of paralinguistic and extralinguistic techniques of non-verbal communication. Isomorphic and allomorphic features of language systems (pp. 41–47). Stavropol: Izdatel’stvo SKFU. (In Russ.)
Supplementary files
