Features of the functioning of rhetorical questions in the English language. Forming Questions in English Use Auxiliary Learning Tools

Warm and ardent greetings to all! Today we continue to develop and complete the theme " To ask questions» — « Asking questions". And in this lesson, in addition to the next portion of questions and answers in English, we will study 5 types of questions, or rather interrogative sentences in English. The topic is both complex and at the same time relatively simple. Indeed, due to the fact that in English there is an established word order in a phrase, it is much easier for us to remember the scheme for constructing a question in English than for foreigners in Russian. Types of questions in English with examples

So, let's not delay for a long time and proceed directly to the study 5 types of questions in English:

General is the most common type of interrogative sentence in English. Having studied the rules for the formation of a general question, it will not be difficult to create all the rest. And the order here is: auxiliary verb - subject - predicate - object - circumstance. Example: Do you play tennis every week? Do you play tennis every week?
Dividing - consists of two parts: a statement and a question directly to this statement. It is built in the following order: the first part, as in the statement, and the second part uses an auxiliary verb, the subject is replaced by a pronoun. For example: Jamie likes his friend's sister, doesn't he? He loves his friend's sister, doesn't he?
Special - the sentence begins with special interrogative words: what? (what?), who? (who?), when? (when?), where? (where?), whose? (whose?), how much? (how many?), etc. After that, all the words follow in the same order as in the general question: Why (Where, When) did you fight with him again? - Why (Where, When) did you fight him again?
Question to the subject - the direct word order is preserved, as in a declarative sentence: Subject - predicate - object, etc. There are no inversions and auxiliary verbs, interrogative words can be used. Interrogative pronouns play the role of the subject: Who is taliking to you? - Who is talking to you?
Alternative - a sentence offering to make a choice of either / or. The union "or" is always used. The order of words practically does not differ from the order in the general case, the union "or" is simply added: Do you like coffee or tea? - Do you like coffee or tea?

So we got acquainted with all types of questions in English. To learn how to ask questions in English correctly, you need to remember the word order in each of the 5 types of interrogative sentences. See also the previous audio lesson on this topic — Learning to ask questions . Now listen to a few more examples of how to ask questions in English correctly and how to answer them correctly: /wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RUEN063.mp3

With this audio lesson, you can not only hear examples of some English questions and answers to them, but you can also use it to practice pronunciation and listening to correct English speech. Remember that the ability to set the task correctly is half of its solution. Therefore, learn to build interrogative sentences for comfortable communication with native speakers.

How is a question structured in English?

This table will clearly show you how the questions in English that you heard in the audio lesson are built. After studying this table, and remembering the correct word order, you can easily formulate any questions to statements in English. Remember these simple rules and when you speak or write in English, ask questions to English-speaking interlocutors correctly!

Asking questions
English	Russian
I have a hobby	I have a hobby
I play tennis	I play tennis
Where is the tennis court?	Where is the tennis court?
Do you have a hobby?	Do you have a hobby?
I play football / soccer (am)	I'm play soccer
Where is the football/soccer (am) field?	Where is the football field?
My arm hurts	My hand hurts
My foot and hand also hurt	My leg and arm hurt too
Is there a doctor?	Where is the doctor?
I have a car/car	I have a car
I also have a motorcycle	I also have a motorcycle
Where could I park?	Where is the parking lot?
I have a sweater	I have a sweater
I also have a jacket and a pair of jeans	I also have a jacket and jeans
Where is the washing machine?	Where is the washing machine?
I have a plate	I have a plate
I have a knife, a fork and a spoon	I have a knife, fork and spoon
Where is the salt and pepper?	Where is the salt and pepper?

In the table, I intentionally did not list all types of English questions, but they are designed so that you yourself can easily convert one type of interrogative sentence into another. So you once again practice in the formulation of questions in English. And practice is the key to gaining skill and / or skill.

As a manuscript

Belokolotskaya Svetlana Alexandrovna

RHETORICAL QUESTION IN ENGLISH Specialty 10.02.04 - Germanic languages

Voronezh - 2005

The work was done at Tula State University

scientific adviser

Official Opponents

Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor Chikurova Maria Fedorovna

Doctor of Philology, Professor

Sternina Marina Abramovna

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor

Antonova Lyudmila Anatolievna

Lead organization

Tula State Pedagogical University

The defense will take place on November 14, 2005 at 2 pm at a meeting of the Dissertation Council D 212 038.16 at Voronezh State University at 394006, Voronezh, Lenin Square, 10, room 14

The dissertation can be found in the scientific library of Voronezh State University.

Scientific Secretary _

Dissertation Council Vella T M

general description of work

The abstract of the dissertation is devoted to the description of the structural and semantic features of rhetorical questions (QQ) in English, their stylistic function of intensifying the utterance and functions in monologue and dialogic text structures.

The rhetorical question is a phenomenon that is widespread in speech, which is why it has attracted and still attracts the attention of researchers. recent decades attempts to define a rhetorical question and describe the features of its functioning were carried out in a number of works by leading Russian and foreign researchers [Zhinkin 1955, Skrebnev 1975, Galperin 1977; Bloch 1983; Chkhetiani 1987; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Quirk et al 1982, 1994; Weinrich 1993 and others] A number of dissertations and other scientific studies are devoted to the problem of non-interrogative use of interrogative sentences, including rhetorical questions [Berdnik 1974; Skrebnev 1975; Bloch 1983, Ostroukhova 1983, Konrad 1985; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992; Sergeeva 1993, Fedorova 1996; Kotovskaya 1999 and others]

However, such a problem as the development of the generally accepted concept of “rhetorical question” has not yet been solved, there is no single approach to identifying the fundamental features of rhetoric, there is no systematic description of the structural, semantic and pragmatic features of the rhetorical question; there are no works that would study the functions of a rhetorical question, its role in the logical-semantic structure of superphrasal unity and in the system of means of expressing the category of intensity

The relevance of the study is due to the prevalence of rhetorical questions in speech and the lack of a systematic description of their structural, semantic, stylistic features, their functions as an utterance intensifier in monologue / dialogic speech, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of parts of dialogic unity, and the place in the logical-semantic structure of superphrasal unity.

The object of the study is the rhetorical question as an intensifier of the statement, its structural and stylistic features, contextual conditionality, role in dialogic and monologue text structures.

The theoretical basis of the study is the achievements of domestic and foreign linguistics in the field of text linguistics [Dyck 1976; Galperin 1981, Moskalskaya 1981; Goncharova 1983, Kukharenko 1988, Bogdanov 1993, Paducheva 1996; Gak 2000 and others], pragmatists [Serl 1986; Austin 1986;

GG Pocheptsov 1971, 1981 Qtob 1980, 1983,

LIBRARY 1 S. Petersburg

E YuoOmt ft Jt

1986 G Pocheptsov 1986, Semenenko 1996, Makarov 1998 and others]. cognitive linguistics [Dyck 1989; Paducheva 1996 and others], stylistics [Galperin 1971, Arnold 1981, Skrebnev 1975, 1983, Turansky 1990, 1991 and others]

The purpose of the study is to implement a comprehensive, integral approach to the study of such a complex phenomenon as a rhetorical question

The set goal is subject to the solution of the following research tasks

1) identify structural syntactic features rhetorical question, \

2) analyze the conditions for the dependence of a rhetorical question on the context,

3) to determine the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of super-phrasal unity (SPU),

4) describe the functions of a rhetorical question in monologue speech (author's / character, external / internal), determine the level of intensity of the utterance presented by the RW,

5) describe the ratio of affirmative characteristics of RT and initiating / response replicas in dialogic unity (DE)

The scientific novelty of the dissertation lies in the fact that for the first time an attempt was made in it for an integrated approach to the study of a rhetorical question - a systematic description of its structural-syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic features, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of the parts of the dialogue! logical unity, in which RE acts as an initiating or response cue, its role as an intensifier in monologue superphrasal unities is determined, the place of RE in the logical-semantic structure of the text is determined, the contextual conditionality of rhetorical questions is analyzed, the dependence / independence of RE from the context is described.

The paper gives a definition of a rhetorical question, which reflects the linguistic nature of the phenomenon under study, describes the signs of rhetoric.

The theoretical significance of the work is. in the fact that it determines the place of a rhetorical question in the system of means of expressing the semantic category of intensity in the English language, describes the role of RW in the logical-semantic structure of monologue and dialogic SPU, The mechanism of interaction between the affirmativeness of RW and the affirmativeness of the reacting / initiating replica in DE is revealed; the structural-semantic types of rhetorical questions are described, the conditions for the dependence / independence of the RW from the context are determined. The results obtained may contribute to further research in the field of rhetorical question, for example, in social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper

theoretical development of modeling communicative processes (verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions of the subject, etc.)

The practical value of the work is determined by the possibility of using the results of the research in lecture courses and seminars on general linguistics, theoretical grammar, English stylistics, special courses on text linguistics and oral speech practice, as well as in compiling textbooks, supervising term papers and theses

The solution of the formulated tasks was carried out by applying a complex research methodology. The main method of analysis is the transformation method. The procedure for identifying an indirect statement of a rhetorical question is the transformation of an interrogative structure into an affirmative one (positive or negative in form).

(1) Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw) -> I should not waste your time in discussing what is inevitable

(2) Isn "t the answer obvious? (Sheldon) -> The answer is obvious.

The work also used such methods of analysis as contextual-semantic, statistical, the method of logical-semantic analysis

The research material included about 5,000 examples obtained from the works of English and American authors, including literary and journalistic texts, as well as the material of the Dictionary of Quotations (The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations)

1 A rhetorical question is an intensifier, the degree of intensity of which increases with an increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition

2 A rhetorical question has all syntactic and all structural forms of an interrogative sentence

3 A rhetorical question in monologue unity is used mainly in reasoning or is an element of reasoning as part of other compositional speech forms, participating in the formation of a logical-semantic implication or anti-implication, expressing a cause, effect or effect opposite to the expected one. The intensity of a rhetorical question in reasoning can reach the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity

4 A rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both an initiating and a response remark. In the role of a response remark, a rhetorical question expresses both agreement and disagreement with the initiating

replica The form of expressing consent is affirmative, which does not coincide with the initiating replica, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmative, coinciding with the initiating replica

5 The rhetorical question is an amalgamated speech act and is introduced in the text by verbs of speaking (to say, to tell, etc.) The possibility of introducing the RW with the verb to ask, characteristic of the quesitive, is proof of the essentiality of the interrogative form of the RW, which realizes the primary meaning of the indirect speech act. Another proof of the materiality RV form is the possibility of answering, it Interrogative as the meaning of the form is an intensifier of the statement and the third sign of materiality direct meaning indirect speech act

6 The rhetoric of a greater number of rhetorical questions is free from context, since it is determined by the syntactic structure of the RW and its internal semantics. The rhetoric of context-dependent rhetorical questions is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes, including the volume of the entire work, which is typical for a rhetorical question in strong positions of the text

Approbation of the work was carried out at scientific conferences of teachers of the Department of Lithuanian and Translation of the Tula State University (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). at the All-Russian scientific conference "Languages and the picture of the world" (Tula State University, 2002); at scientific and methodological seminars of graduate students Based on the research materials, seven scientific articles were published.

The main goal and objectives of the study determine the structure of the dissertation work, which consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of scientific and fiction literature, as well as a list of dictionaries.

The introduction substantiates the relevance of the dissertation work, defines the goals and objectives of the study, as well as the material, methods and techniques of research, describes the procedure for identifying the indirect meaning of a rhetorical question (PQ), clarifies the structure of the dissertation, formulates the provisions submitted for defense

The first chapter "The rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature and in the system of expressing the category of intensity" presents the theoretical aspect of the problem under study.

The dissertation adopted a well-established point of view in English on a rhetorical question, according to which it is defined as a figure of speech, consisting in giving an affirmation or denial of an interrogative form in order to create a stylistic effect, attract increased attention,

raising the emotional drive of the utterance Rhetoric is a stylistic and pragmatic function of a specific syntactic structure, the positive and negative of which are two sides of one phenomenon - a rhetorical question, which is characterized by an asymmetry in the affirmativeness of its formal and content characteristics. affirmative constative The presence of a statement in the form of a question and the asymmetry of the affirmativeness of the formal and meaningful characteristics of an interrogative sentence are recognized as the main signs of rhetoric.

A rhetorical question, which is an emphatic statement, is an effective means of expressing the category of intensity - a semantic category, which is based on the concept of gradation of quantity, due to which it is a quantitative measure of quality assessment, a measure of the amount of expressiveness, emotionality, evaluativeness, signaling the gradualness of the intensification of the statement.

A rhetorical question is an intensifier that can include other intensifiers in its composition. The degree of intensity of an utterance, expressed by RP, increases with an increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition. RP, which does not contain additional intensifiers, implements the first degree of intensification of the utterance, while the interrogative form acts as an intensifier of the first degree . The presence of an intensifier of any level in the RE increases the degree of intensification of the utterance presented by the RE by one step on the intensity scale. The general degree of intensification of an utterance, expressed by RE, is determined by adding the intensifiers that make up its composition, including the intensification created by the emphatic form of the RE itself.

The second chapter "The rhetorical question, its structural-syntactic features and contextual conditionality" considers the structural-semantic features of RW and its contextual conditionality.

A rhetorical question has all the syntactic forms of an interrogative sentence and all constructive structural forms. The most characteristic forms for RW are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word RW in the form of other syntax types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question) is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.

The rhetoric of RT can be both context-conditioned and context-free Rhetoric, free of context, is determined by the syntactic structure of RT and (or) its internal semantics. A significant group of RTs, whose rhetoric is free of context,

constitute RV containing a universal truth, about which there is and cannot be any doubt, which reduces the questioning of such a question to a minimum. social norms and rules of behavior in society, as well as judgments based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker and realizing the category "my personal world"

Example (1) consists of two RTs that contain the most objective universal truth regarding objective validity, physical phenomena that exist independently of the will, desire and worldview of a person:

(1) Can storyed urn or animated bust

Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath? Can honor "s voice provoke the silent dust, Or flattery soothe the dull cold car of death"" (Gray) -> Storied urn or animated bust cannot back to its mansion call the fleeting breath Honors voice cannot provoke the silent dust, or flattery cannot soothe the dull cold ear of death.

In example (2), RT contains a universal truth that reflects a person’s ideas about the structure and laws of the world around him, a person’s observations of the course of life. The subjectivity of such statements is expressed in the fact that they are given through the prism of a person’s perception of life; their objectivity is expressed in the fact that the stated judgment is a global observation of humanity, and not an expression of the personal position of the speaker

Most often, RVs express universal truths based on common Chechen values "human relationships, attitudes towards life and death, love and hate, wisdom, etc.; they are obvious and undeniable

(3) Can two walk together, cxcept they be agreed1? (The Bible) -» Two cannot walk together, except they be agreed

Often, RWs express philosophical reasoning, containing an attempt to comprehend what is happening around, to find the meaning of life, they combine the general human laws of being and the subjective position of the speaker.

(4) Canst thou by searching find God7 (The Bible) -> Thou cannot by searching find God

The universal truth represented by RT may be a judgment based on the norms, values, social attitudes and laws of a particular community. Such statements are more subjective and may not

be indisputable to a member of another community"

(5) Who dies if England live9 (Kipling) -< No one dies if England live

PB (5) contains a truth, the indisputability of which is determined by the patriotic feelings of the British This conviction may not be shared by residents of other states

The universal truth in example (6) is based on the features of the social structure of a post-industrial society and the rules of consumer relations existing in it:

(6) If your electricity goes out, do you call the gas company7 If your tires blow, do you blame the car maker? (Chnchton). -»If your electricity goes out, you do not call the gas company If your tires blow, you do not blame the car maker.

The indisputability of such judgments for all members of a particular community elevates them to the rank of universal truths within that community.

RVs may contain judgments that the speaker presents as universal truth; they are the most subjective, since they express exclusively the author's position based on his individual worldview. They may not coincide with the views of the reader (listener), and sometimes conflict with social norms or universal ideas about the laws of the surrounding reality.

(7) What hath night to do with sleep? (Milton) -» Night has nothing to do with sleep

The rhetoric of PB is free from context even if RV is a widespread, informationally complete, autosemantic utterance. The rhetoric of such RT is based on the completeness of the information structure containing the argumentation of the implied RT statement:

(8) But I didn't worry about him any more, because who was going to believe him? (Hemingway) -> But I didn't worry about him any more, because no one was going to believe him.

The rhetoric of context-dependent PBs can be revealed against a background of context of various sizes. The context that reveals the meaning of PB can be limited to the framework of the minimum context in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the PB:

(9) Who could attempt to pursue him9 It was impossible (M Shelly)

In example (9), the sentence following the RW argues for the statement implied by the RW (No one could attempt to pursue him) and serves as a confirmation of its rhetoric. The context necessary to reveal the rhetoric of the question can extend to several SPUs or cover the volume of the entire work (RW in strong positions of the text ) The rhetoric of RV,

The third chapter "Rhetorical question in monologue unity" considers the functioning of RW as an intensifier of monologue (author's and character) speech, determines the degree of intensification of the statement represented by a rhetorical question, describes the use of RW in compositional speech forms of the text, determines the place of the rhetorical question in the logical and semantic structure of monological superphrasal unity

In monologue speech, a rhetorical question occurs in any compositional speech form, however, it is most typical for reasoning, both in authorial and character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. (up to the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity) RE is realized in the author's reasoning, where it is part of a lyrical digression and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality

Example (10) is the author's lyrical digression in a strong position of the SFU (10) completes T Dreiser's novel "Sister Carry" ("Sister Carry") and contains the author's conclusion - the moral of the work "(10) If honest labor be unremunerative and difficult to endure ; if it be the long, long road which never reachcs beauty, but wearies the feet and the heart, if the drag to follow beauty be such that one abandons the admired way, taking rather the despised path leading to her dreams quickly, who shall cast the first stone9 Not evil, but longing for that which is better, more often directs the steps of the erring Not evil, but goodness more often allures the feeling mind unused to reason (Dreiser)

The author justifies the life choice of the heroine, who chose the shortest and, from the point of view of social and religious morality, dishonorable path to success and wealth. An essential place in the emphatic presentation of the author's position is occupied by RV, the emphaticity of which is enhanced by a combination of lexical and syntactic means of intensification with biblical allusion (who shall cast the first stone), using the subjunctive mood characteristic of the high style (if it be), gradation based on parallel constructions with triple anaphoric repetition (If honest labor ., if it be , if the drag), two expanded metaphors ( if it be the long, long road which never reaches beauty, if the drag to follow beauty be such that one abandons the admired way, taking rather the despised path leading to her dreams quickly), epithets (despised path, admired way), zeugma (wearies the feet and the

heart), the repetition of the evaluative adjective (long), as well as the strong position of digression in the novel

A rhetorical question plays an essential role in building the logical structure of a monologue-reasoning. An emphatic statement in the form of RV is an element of a causal relationship, a left-handed or right-handed implication. positions of monologic supra-phrasal unity, RW sums up the arguments that make up this SFU, and is a consequence - consequent of the implication. As the material of the study shows, the dominant position of RE in the composition of implicative SFU is the position of the consequent (consequence), which can be presented both in preposition and in postposition to the antecedent.

Another essential function of RE in the logical structure of a monologue-reasoning is the function of the anti-consequent (consequence opposite to the expected one) in the opposite anti-implicative structure characteristic of reasoning. Determining the presence of a marker or substituting it is a procedure for identifying the SFU of the corresponding logical-semantic type.

Thus, in example (10), the RW contains a conclusion from the argument - the consequent of the implication, followed by its justification (the antecedent of the implication) in the form of two sentences-conjuncts

If honest labor be unremunerative and difficult to endure; if it be the long, long road which never reaches beauty, but wearies the feet and the heart, if the drag to follow beauty be such that one abandons the admired way, taking rather the despised path leading to her dreams quickly, no one shall cast the first stone, (for) Not evil, but longing for that which is better, more often directs the steps of the erring (and) Not evil, but goodness more often allures the feeling mind unused to reason

In narration, RS is used to create an atmosphere of tension, to describe events more vividly, to convey the feelings and experiences of heroes, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration in character speech. In objectified narration, RS is rare. (11) All the boys clapped hands in token of applause and sympathy His blushes, his stumbles, his awkwardness, and the number of feet which he crushed as he went back to his place, who shall describe or calculate9 Old Dobbin, his father, who now respected him for the first time, gave him two guineas publicly, most of which he spent in a general tuckout for the school, and he came back in a tail-coat after the holidays (Thackeray)

RE in example (11) serves as a means of conveying the emotional state of a student lagging behind in a number of subjects, who receives an award for success in mathematics The solemnity of the situation, the applause of classmates and the presence of the father embarrass the character

1) form PB;

2) preposition of minor members of the sentence (homogeneous additions),

3) a synonymic series (His blushes, his stumbles, his awkwardness, and the number of feet he crushed);

4) anaphoric repetition of the personal pronoun (his)

The RE in example (11) has the fifth degree of intensity and is part of the structure of a sequential right-hand implication, being the consequent of the previous and the antecedent of the subsequent statement: All the boys clapped hands in token of applause and sympathy (so) No one shall describe or calculate his blushes, his stumbles, his awkwardness, and the number of feet which he crashed as he went back to his place (so) Old Dobbin, his father, who now respected him for the first time, gave him two guineas publicly; most of which he spent in a general tuckout for the school, and he came back in a tail-coat after the holidays.

In the description, the rhetorical question serves as a means of expressing the author's attitude to the described character (place) and is more typical for dynamic descriptions, which include descriptions of the character, behavior, lifestyle, experiences of the character. Example (12) contains a dynamic portrait of the heroine, presented through a description of the attitude of others around her.

(12) But it just happened that none of the men she knew had ever wanted to marry her And why should they want to7 When she came into a room the light seemed to grow perceptibly dimmer, the electrical tension slackened off (Huxley) -* But it just happened that none of the men she knew had ever wanted to marry her And there is no reason why they should want to (for) When she came into a room the light seemed to grow perceptibly dimmer, the electrical tension slackened off

The RE in example (12) is an elliptic sentence and is a structure of the second degree of intensity:

1) RV form,

2) stylistically colored syntactic structure (ellipsis)

A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional and speech forms of narration and reasoning or description and reasoning, where the rhetorical question presents elements of reasoning containing an assessment by the narrator (character) of the events, people, etc.

The degree of intensification of the utterance, represented by RW in narration and description, varies from the first to the fourth on the scale of intensity.

In the fourth chapter "The rhetorical question in dialogic unity"

the ratio of the affirmative characteristics of the RW and the affirmative characteristics of the initiating or reciprocal remark of the dialogical unity interacting with it is presented.

A rhetorical question can act as both a response and an initiating remark DE

The main pragmatic functions of the RT-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. , usually as an antecedent of a left-handed implicative structure

In this work, consent is understood as a positive reaction of the interlocutor to the content of the initiating remark, consisting in an affirmative answer to the question, consent to perform a certain action, a positive assessment of the intentions or views of the interlocutor, etc. The procedure for identifying the pragmatic function of consent is the possibility of substituting the consent marker (Yes) -or its equivalents (of course, sure, etc.) without changing the semantic structure of the dialogic unity.

The form of expression of agreement is affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of disagreement is affirmativeness, which coincides with the initiating remark is a positive statement Positive in form RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator present in the RE replicas

(13) "Is it true, Pilar9" he asked me "When did I lie to you7" I told him (Hemingway).

PB (13) contains one lexical negator (the verb of negative semantics to lie, the negative information of the root morpheme of which is fixed in the dictionary definition containing the negation marker to lie -to give an untrue statement ) The indirect statement PB (13) is a positive constative formed as a result of interaction of two negators - lexical and grammatical - as part of the indirect utterance РВ-1 never lied to you

The implicit Yes and the indirect statement PB (13) are connected by cause-and-effect relationships; when explicating the indirect statement of the response, the substitution of the implication marker is possible because1 Yes, it is, because I never lied to you

Positive in form PB is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement -

(14) Carla You didn't like her7

Philip- Could you expect me to7 (Christie).

PB (14) does not contain means of expressing negation and implies a negative statement (You couldn't expect mc to), which is an affirmative answer to the question contained in the initiating remark. Implicit consent in this case contains the marker No and is in relation to the conjunction with the indirect statement РВ (14) No, I didn't and you couldn't expect me to.

Disagreement in this work is understood as a negative reaction of the interlocutor to the content of the initiating remark, consisting in a negative answer to the question, objection, protest, refusal to perform a certain action, negative assessment of the intentions or views of the interlocutor, etc. The procedure for identifying the pragmatic meaning of disagreement is the possibility of substituting a disagreement marker (No and its semantic equivalents) in response without violating the semantic structure of the DU.

Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a positive e

saying:

(15) "Or is it that you"re afraid we"ll steal your secrets?" "What secrets can a beginning carver have?" (Stone)

The indirect statement PB (15) (A beginning carver has no secrets) is a negative constative in form - an antecedent of an implicative structure, the consequent of which contains the implicit negation marker No and a negative answer to the one presented in the initiating

replica part of the alternative question No, I am not afraid you "ll steal my secrets, because a beginning carver has no secrets

A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a negative statement. The discrepancy between the information signs of the initiating remark and the RT-response remark is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response remark -

(16) Mary Promise me, dear, you won "t believe I made you an excuse Edmund What else can I believe9 (O" Neill)

PB (16) contains the lexical negator else, the negative semantics of which is confirmed by a two-stage definitional analysis, else-other , other - not the same Indirect statement PB (16) is a positive statement, represented by a negative sentence with a double negation There's nothing else I can believe , which is the antecedent of an implicative structure, the consequent of which is an implicit refusal expressed by a complex sentence with two negators No, I won "t promise I won" t believe you made me an excuse, because there "s nothing else I can believe

PB in the response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of PB, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement:

The procedure for identifying partial agreement / disagreement is the possibility of substituting its marker (Yes, but, No, but) or their semantic equivalents without changing the semantic structure of the DU

(17) Lady: The early bird catches the worm Jabe: That's right. Where's the worm? (Williams).

In example (17), the response replica consists of an affirmative sentence expressing agreement with the statement of the interlocutor and RE, implying disagreement with it. which the indirect statement RV implements the anti-consequent of the anti-implication - That "s right but there" s no worm

Acting as an initiating replica of the DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive retort directly related to its content.

realizable indirect statement RV Such DUs are

homogeneous constative DU, consisting of two constatives

(18) Roilander You would turn down any financial offer I made you. But can you

afford to turn down a chance of your wife recovering her health1"

Karl You're quite right (Cristie)

The response cue in DU (18) is a colloquial formula of agreement. The explication of the indirect utterance RV (18) brings to the surface the constativity of the initiating cue and the entire DU.

(18) Roilander You would turn down any financial offer 1 made you. But you can not afford to turn down a chance of your wife recovering her health.

Karl. You're quite right

In a number of DUs, the response response is a reaction to a quesitive. In such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser in different ways. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication RV, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content. RV IN DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV acquires significant significance, here there is a realization of the primary meaning of an indirect speech act -

(19) "I carried out my orders. I sent in all of my boys But the Germans are ahead of us. They have artillery, tanks and me? What did I have7"

"Secret duty to resist" (Kirkland).

In DE (19) the response in form and content is a response to the quesitive, but the context indicates the rhetoric of the question-initiating remark. RV (19) belong! to a military commander who explains to the commander the reason for another defeat during World War II. The indirect statement of the initiating remark is the negative constant I did not have anything (either artillery, or tanks). The context indicating the absence of an information gap in the addressee and, therefore, confirming the rhetoric of the question is the information preceding the RV (19), as well as background knowledge about the plight of the Red Army in the first years of the war. About the rhetorical! And the question is also indicated by the pronoun 1 person singular in the question. The response in DE (19) is an ellipsis of the affirmative sentence You had a secret duty to resist and expresses an opinion different from the statement implied by the RV "I did not have anything" "Yes, you did. You had a secret duty to resist"

mismatched, because in them there is a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants

(20) Elizabeth Isn "t it fun being in love with someone who" s in love with you9 Teddie I say, G think I "d better clear out at once, don" t you7 (Maugham)

The reactive remark in DE (20) is not related to the content of the RE, but is a formal response of the interlocutor to the statement, i.e. taking a speech course and signals the end of the conversation

In conclusion, the results of the study are formulated,

overall result of the work

The results of the study give grounds for the following conclusions.

1. A rhetorical question has all syntactic and all structural forms of an interrogative sentence. The most typical for RV are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word. RE, having the form of other syntactic types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question), is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.

2 The rhetoric of context-dependent RW is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes. The context that reveals the meaning of the RE can be limited to the minimum context in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the RE; the context may extend to several SFU or cover the scope of the entire work. The rhetoric of RW, which contains intertext - allusions, references, etc., and also acts as a precedent statement, i.e., quotation, is manifested against the background of the deep, background context of the work.

The rhetoric of context-free REs is determined by the syntactic and semantic completeness of the sentence. A significant group of RT, the rhetoric of which is free from the context, consists of questions containing universal truth - an indisputable fact based on the phenomena of reality, universal values, social structure and norms of behavior in society. The obviousness and indisputability of the judgment contained in the RW excludes the possibility of its functioning as a quesitive, since it makes the request for information redundant. The universal truths expressed by the RW are distinguished by the “volume of universality” and include judgments, the indisputability of which is explained both by the objective processes of the surrounding world and universal values, and based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker.

3 The rhetorical question plays an essential role in the construction of the logical structure of the utterance, both in monologue and dialogic speech. An emphatic statement in the form of RV is, as a rule, an element of a causal or adversative relationship, left-handed or right-handed implication or anti-implication. In the logical-semantic structure of the utterance, RP plays the role of a cause (antecedent of implication), a consequence (consequent of implication), or a consequence opposite to what is expected (anticosequent of anti-implication). , and in postposition to the antecedent

4 In monologue speech, a rhetorical question is used in any compositional speech form, however, it is most characteristic of the day of reasoning both in authorial and character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. (up to the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity) RW realizes in the author's reasoning - in a lyrical digression - and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality

In narration, RE is used to create an atmosphere of tension, to describe events more vividly, to convey the feelings and experiences of characters, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration in character speech. In objectified narration, RE is rare.

A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional speech forms - narrative and reasoning or description and reasoning, where the rhetorical question presents elements of reasoning containing the narrator's (character's) assessment of the events, people, etc., and reflecting the views of the author ( narrator or character) regarding a particular character trait, deed, character's lifestyle or thoughts inspired by the object of description

The degree of intensification of the utterance represented by the RW in the narrative and description varies from the first to the fourth on the scale of intensity.

5 The rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both a response and an initiating remark.

The main pragmatic functions of the RT-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The form of expressing consent is affirmative, which does not coincide with the initiating cue, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmative, coinciding with the initiating cue. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect statement. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator that is part of RE. The coincidence of the information signs of the initiating remark and the indirect utterance of the RE-response remark is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response remark.

A positive RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a positive statement A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement Mismatch between the information signs of the initiating replica and the RE-response replica is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning response remark

RE in a response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of the RW, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing consent.

6. Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question may be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such replies (as well as the majority of reactive replicas) is the expression of agreement (full or partial) or disagreement with the statement, realized by the indirect statement of the RW. Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.

In a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to the quesitive. In some DUs characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser differently. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication of the RW, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content of the RW. In a DE of this kind

the interrogative form of RV becomes essential, i.e., there is a realization of the primary meaning of an indirect speech act

A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT. by changing the topic of conversation or ending it. Such MUs are characterized as mismatched, since they are characterized by a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants.

The main provisions of the dissertation are reflected in the following publications:

1 Belokolotskaya S.A. Syntactic structure of a rhetorical question in English / S.A. Belokolotskaya, M.F. Chikurova // Proceedings of the Tula State University. Series: Philological Sciences. - Tula, 1999. - Issue. 1,-C. 93-96.

2. Belokolotskaya SA Rhetorical question as a component of dialogic citation / SA Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University Series: Philological Sciences. - Tula, 2000. - Issue. 2. - S. 30-32.

3 Belokolotskaya S.A. Interrogative sentences as pragmatic clichés in the structure of metacommunicative communication / SA Belokolotskaya // Languages and the picture of the world "mat. All-Russian scientific conference - Tula: Publishing house of TulGU, 2002.-p. 14-17.

4 Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical question on the scale of intensity / S.A. Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University Series-Philological Sciences. - Tula, 2003 - Issue 3 - S. 19-27.

5 Belokolotskaya SA A rhetorical question as a means of characterizing a linguistic personality / SA Belokolotskaya // Linguistic personality as a subject of theoretical and applied linguistics: mater Vserossiysk. scientific conf. -Tula: Publishing House of TulGU, 2004. - S. 24-29.

6. Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical question in monologue author's speech / SA Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University Series: Philological Sciences. - Tula, 2004. - Issue. 4 - C 39-45.

7. Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical question as an initiating remark of dialogical unity / S.A. Belokolotskaya // Proceedings of the Tula State University. Series: Philological Sciences - Tula, 2004. -

Issue 4.-S. 45-51.

I. I 1Mn L1>K 020100 dated 12 02 97 Iolshayu in not chip 26 04 t Format6\s<1ги 60x84 Ьчмага гфсстшя

1 \ 1y.kky goolar^tiekny \ inverekget 300600 | T \ 1v nrosn Chsnii I 92

(LISCHvTENO N I 1 it<. [ЬСГЖ I V (1 N ШЮ г 1>1M \m pit IG

CHAPTER 1. A RHETORICAL QUESTION IN MODERN

LINGUISTIC LITERATURE AND IN THE SYSTEM OF EXPRESSION OF THE INTENSITY CATEGORY.

1.1. Rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature.

CHAPTER 2

2.1. Rhetorical question, its syntactic features and structural forms.

2.1.1 Syntactic types of a rhetorical question.

2.1.2 Structural forms of a rhetorical question.

2.2. Contextual conditionality of a rhetorical question. f 2.2.1. A rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which does not depend on the context.

2.2.2. A rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which depends on the context.

CHAPTER 3. RHETORICAL QUESTION IN MONOLOGICAL UNITY.

3.2. A rhetorical question in the character's reasoning.

F 3.3. Rhetorical question in the narrative.

3.4. Rhetorical question in the description.

CHAPTER 4. RHETORICAL QUESTION IN DIALOGICAL F UNITY.

4.1. A rhetorical question as a response.

4.1.1. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing agreement.

4.1.2. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing disagreement.

4.1.3. A rhetorical question in a response as a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement.

4.1.4. A rhetorical question is a component of a dialogic quotation in a response as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement.

4.2. Rhetorical question as an initiating remark.

4.2.1. Rhetorical question in constative dialogical unities.

4.2.2. Rhetorical question in constative-quesitive dialogic unities. f 4.2.3. A rhetorical question in discordant dialogic unities. Conclusions.

Dissertation Introduction 2005, abstract on philology, Belokolotskaya, Svetlana Aleksandrovna

The present work is devoted to the description of the structural and semantic features of rhetorical questions (QQs) in English, their stylistic function of utterance intensification and their function in monologic and dialogic text structures.

The rhetorical question is a phenomenon that is widespread in speech, which is why it has attracted and still attracts the attention of researchers. Over the past decades, attempts to define a rhetorical question and describe the features of its functioning have been carried out in a number of works by leading Russian and foreign researchers [Zhinkin 1955; Skrebnev 1975; Galperin 1977; Bloch 1983; Weinrich 1983, 1993; Chkhetiani 1987; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1982, 1994 and others].

The problem of non-interrogative use of interrogative sentences, including rhetorical questions, is the subject of a number of dissertations and other scientific studies [Bloch 1983; Skrebnev 1983; Ostroukhova 1983; Konrad 1985; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992; Sergeeva 1993; Fedorova, 1996; Kotovskaya 1999 and others]

However, in the existing interpretations of the rhetorical question, a number of contradictions can be traced. In some works, an expressively colored negation is called a rhetorical question [Russian Grammar 1980: 395], in others it is an affirmative message or an inducement [Velik 1993: 138], in others it is a hidden affirmation or negation [Zhinkin 1955; Akhmanova 1966; Skrebnev 1975; Berdnik 1988; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Khaikova 1999; Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1994]. The term "rhetorical question" itself is often replaced by the terms "pseudo-interrogative sentence", "non-interrogatively used interrogative sentence", expressive-stating interrogative sentence, "false question", false question, "imaginary question", "pseudo question" [Bally 1961: 308 ; Restan 1972; Dolinin 1978; Chkhetiani 1987; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992].

In * different studies, certain aspects of interrogative sentences are touched upon, which can be interpreted as rhetorical questions. So, in the work of JI.A. Ostroukhova. only non-pronominal interrogative sentences are considered, functioning as a reactive cue. Research by S.S. Kotovskaya is devoted to the role of prosody in the differentiation of the German rhetorical question1. T. A. Sergeeva considers rhetorical! question in> German dialogical speech.

Thus, such a problem as the development of the generally accepted concept of "rhetorical question" has not yet found its solution, there is no single approach to identifying the fundamental features of rhetoric, there is no systematic description of the structural, semantic and pragmatic features of the rhetorical question; there are no works in which the functions of the rhetorical question, its role, in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity and in the system of intensification of the statement would be studied.

The relevance ■ of the study is due1 to the prevalence of rhetorical questions in speech and the lack of a systematic description of their structural, semantic, stylistic features, their functions as an utterance intensifier in monologue/dialogic speech, and the correlation* of affirmative characteristics of the parts. DE, places in the logical-semantic structure of SFU.

The development of new areas of modern linguistics - text linguistics and pragmalinguistics - requires the study of the communicative features of language structures, taking into account the relationship between their explicit and implicit characteristics, their autonomous and context-related meanings.

Modern linguistics proceeds from the recognition that the final product of the grammar of a language is not a sentence, but a coherent text. The spread of grammatical interest beyond the limits of the sentence invariably changes the perspective of analysis as a whole and leads to the restructuring of traditional approaches [Pozdeev 1981: 121]. An analysis of such a phenomenon as a rhetorical question is impossible without considering it against the background of a larger structure, i.e. text.

Until recently, the text in its relation to the sentence was reduced to the concept of a diagnosing context, that is, the textual minimum that is necessary to reveal the functional purpose of various aspects, forms and elements of the sentence [Bloch 2000: 113]. Currently, the subject of research is the construction of the text, its constitutive elements, both formal and content. In the present study, following T. van Dijk, the text means a complex multidimensional formation, consisting of interrelated factors and elements, where not just the linear nature of the chain is important, but the nature of the relationship between sentences in their coherent sequence [Dijk 1989: 126]. As M.Ya. Bloch, in the objective reality of language, the text exists not only as a contextual minimum for the diagnosis of meaning, but as a complete whole, whether it be a written monologue essay or an oral dialogue [Bloch 2000: 113].

Recognizing the entire conventionality of the distinction between monologue and dialogue, which is pointed out by Russian and foreign researchers [Vygotsky 1934; Bakhtin 1979; Radzikhovsky 1985, 1988; Semenenko 1996: 8; Yakubinsky 1986: 26, 34; Vinokur 1990: 217; Makarov 1998: 71; Myerson 1994 and others], we will distinguish between a monologue and a dialogue, defining a monologue as a unidirectional structure, a linear chain of sentences; and dialogue as a multidirectional structure alternating a chain of sentences formed by the alternation of statements by two or more participants in a speech act [Bloch 2000: 116; Moskalskaya 1981: 123].

A monologue is a form of speech formed as a result of active speech activity, designed for passive and indirect perception. Monologue speech can be defined as an intrapersonal speech act, which is characterized by significant segments of text, consisting of structurally and meaningfully related statements that have an individual compositional structure and relative semantic completeness [Vinokur 1990: 310].

A special role in distinguishing between types and forms of speech in a text is played by super-phrasal unity (SPU) - the unity of two or more independent sentences characterized by semantic, communicative and structural completeness and developing one “micro-theme” [Galperin 1981: 67; Kukharenko 1988: 68-69; Gak 2000: 777-778].

Dialogue is an ordered sequence of verbal actions carried out by at least two participants in communication, during which the communicants exchange roles and jointly create a text consisting of dialogic units (DE) [Shvedova 1956; Valyusinskaya 1979; Chakhoyan 1979; Slavgorodskaya 1986; Hundsnurscher 1998 and others]

Usually DU is defined as a monothematic unit of dialogue, given by a communicative intention and expressed in logical-semantic coherence, as well as grammatical, lexical, prosodic (full or partial) integrity [Moskalskaya 1981: 42-43; Mikhailov 1994: 152 and others]. DU is isolated from the dialogue on the basis of the completeness of the communicative interaction. The main signal of its border is a change in communicative intention. The intentionality of the speech course is a condition for normal communication [Komina 1983: 127-128; Susov 1984: 7; Pocheptsov 1986: 74; Romanov 1989: 41 and others].

The leading role in the formation of the DU structure belongs to pragmatic factors [Gasteva 1990: 3]. The pragmatic meaning of the response cue is inextricably linked with the pragmatic meaning of the initiating cue, i.e. it is largely determined by the pragmatic type - DE, of which the response cue is a part. The correlation of pragmatic types of sentences and pragmatic types of DU allows us to distinguish between DU by the final intention of the speech act that constitutes all pragmatic types of sentences identified in pragmatic syntax based on the structure of a speech act without taking into account the two-way nature of communication can be attributed to the types used as the first part of the DU [Chikurova 1985: 129-135]. In the study, we take as a basis the classification of speech acts proposed by G.G. Pocheptsov, in which five pragmatic types of sentences are distinguished - constative, promissive, and menasive, performative, directives, quesitive - supplementing it with some other types of speech acts (phatic, emotive and etc.).

The object of the research is a rhetorical question as an intensifier of an utterance, its structural and stylistic features, contextual conditionality, and its role in dialogic and monologue text structures.

The theoretical basis of the study is the achievements of domestic and foreign linguistics in the field of text linguistics [Dyck 1976; Galperin 1981; Moskalskaya 1981; Goncharova 1983; Kukharenko 1988; Bogdanov 1993; Paducheva 1996; Gak 2000 and others], pragmatists [Austin 1986; Searle 1986; G. G. Pocheptsov 1971, 1981; G. G. Pocheptsov (Jr.) 1983, 1987; Susov 1980, 1983, 1986; O. G. Pocheptsov 1986; Semenenko 1996; Makarov 1998 and others]1, cognitive linguistics [Dyck 1989; Paducheva 1996 and others), stylistics [Galperin 1977; Arnold 1981, Skrebnev 1975, 1985; Turansky 1990, 1991 and others].

The purpose of the study is to implement a comprehensive, integral approach to the study of such a complex phenomenon as a rhetorical question.

The goal is to solve the following research problems:

1) identify the structural and syntactic features of a rhetorical question;

2) analyze the conditions for the dependence of a rhetorical question on the context;

3) determine the role of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity;

4) describe the functions of a rhetorical question in monologue speech (author's / character; external / internal), determine the level of intensity of the statement represented by a rhetorical question;

5) describe the ratio of affirmative characteristics of a rhetorical question and initiating / response replicas in a dialogic unity.

The scientific novelty of the dissertation lies in the fact that for the first time an attempt was made in it for an integrated approach to the study of a rhetorical question: a systematic description of its structural-syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic features, the ratio of affirmative characteristics of parts of a dialogic unity, in which the rhetorical question acts as an initiating or response remark; its role as an intensifier in monological superphrasal unities is determined, the place of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the text is determined; the contextual conditionality of rhetorical questions is analyzed, the dependence / independence of rhetorical questions from the context is described.

The paper gives a definition of a rhetorical question, which reflects the linguistic nature of the phenomenon under study; signs of rhetoric are described.

The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that it determines the place of the rhetorical question in the system of means * expressing the semantic category of intensity in the English language; the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of monological and dialogic SPU is described; the mechanism of interaction between the affirmativeness of the RE and the affirmativeness of the reacting / initiating replica in DU was revealed; structural-semantic types of rhetorical questions are described; the conditions for dependence / independence of RT from the context are defined. The results obtained may contribute to further "research in the field of the rhetorical question, for example, in the social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling-communicative processes." (Verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions4 of the subject, etc.).

The practical value of the work is determined by the possibility of using the results of the research in lecture courses and seminars on general linguistics, theoretical grammar, stylistics of the English language, special courses on linguistics of text and colloquial speech, in the practice of teaching English, in compiling teaching aids works.

The solution of the formulated problems was carried out by applying a "complex research methodology. The main method of analysis is the transformation method. The procedure for identifying an indirect statement of a rhetorical question is the transformation of an interrogative structure into an affirmative one (positive or negative in form):

1) Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw 1: 60) -» I should not waste your time in discussing what is inevitable.

2) Isn "t the answer obvious? (Sheldon: 362) -> The answer is obvious.

The work also used such methods of analysis as contextual-semantic, statistical, method of logical-semantic analysis.

This dissertation completes the list of works that use logical tools. The advantage of the logical-semantic approach is that a simple logical toolkit is used as a means of obtaining new linguistic data about the types of text structures. The term "logical-semantic" reflects the essence of the approach: semantics is the goal of research, logic and its apparatus are the means [Inshina 1989: 7]. Formal logic describes the relationship between logical objects with the help of five intentional connections: conjunction (connection of the type "A and B" - AdB), disjunction (connection of the type "A or B" - AvB), negation (connection of the type "A, not A" - A, A), implications “If A, then B” - Az>B), and equivalence (connection of the form “A, that is B” - A~B) [Kondakov 1976: 149-150, 192-193, 264, 421-423, 677]. This list should be supplemented with the relation of anti-implication (“A, but not B” - A-0B)1, which combines signs of denial and implication and is expressed in opposing and concessive structures [Chikurova 1981, 1987].

Sentimental connectives are marked with language units that act as logical constants. The marker of the conjunctive connection is and, the equivalence - that is, the markers of the right-hand implication (the antecedent precedes the consequent) - so, therefore, as a result of, the left-hand implication (the consequent precedes the antecedent) - that as, for, because [Chikurova 1981, 1987]. Determining the presence of a marker or substituting it is a procedure for identifying the SFU of the corresponding logical-semantic type.

The research material included about 5,000 examples obtained from the works of English and American authors, including fiction and

1 Following M.F. Chikurova uses here a sign that reflects the conjunction of elements of the surface structure and the disjunction of the deep structure [Chikurova 1991], publicistic texts, as well as the material of the Dictionary of Quotations (The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations).

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

1. Rhetorical, the question is an intensifier, the degree of intensity of which increases with the increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition.

2. A rhetorical question has all syntactic forms * of an interrogative sentence and all structural forms.

3. A rhetorical question - in - monologue, unity is used mainly in reasoning or is an element1 of reasoning * in * as part of other compositional speech forms, participating in the formation of a logical-semantic implication or anti-implication, expressing cause, effect or effect, opposite expected. The intensity of a rhetorical question in reasoning* can reach the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity.

4. A rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both an initiating and a response remark: In the role of a response, a rhetorical question expresses both agreement and disagreement with the initiating remark. The form of expression of agreement is affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expression of disagreement is affirmativeness, which coincides with the initiating remark.

5. A rhetorical question is an amalgamated speech act and is introduced in the text by speaking verbs (to say, to tell, etc.): speech1 act. Another proof of the importance of the form of RW is the possibility of answering it. Interrogativeness as the meaning of the form is the intensifier of the statement and the third sign of the essentiality of the direct meaning of the indirect speech act.

6. The rhetoric of a large number of rhetorical questions is free from context, since it is determined by the syntactic structure of the RW and its internal semantics. The rhetoric of context-dependent rhetorical questions is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes, including the volume of the entire work, which is typical for a rhetorical question in strong positions of the text.

Approbation of the work was carried out at scientific conferences of teachers of the Department of Linguistics and Translation of the Tula State University (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005), at the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Languages and the Picture of the World" (Tula State University, 2002); at scientific and methodological seminars of graduate students. Based on the research materials, seven scientific articles have been published.

The main goal and objectives of the study determine the structure of the dissertation work, which consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a list of scientific and fiction literature, and a list of dictionaries.

Conclusion of scientific work thesis on "Rhetorical question in English"

A rhetorical question in a dialogic unity can be used as a - * as a response or as an initiating replica DE.

The main pragmatic functions of the RE-response cue are the expressions of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect utterance. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement, i.e. expressed by a positive sentence or by a negative sentence containing an even number of negators. Rhetoric is a negator entering into. interaction with a grammatical or lexical negator that is * present in the composition of the RE "and provides a positive indirect statement of the RE. Positive in form, the RE is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement, while rhetoric is a negator that provides a negative-indirect statement of the RE. Coincidence of information signs of the initiating and the reciprocal replica is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the reciprocal replica.

Positive in form RT "is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement, i.e. expressed by a positive sentence or a negative sentence containing an even number of negators. At the same time, rhetoric is a negator that provides a negative indirect utterance of RV. A rhetorical question, containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with the grammatical or lexical negator that is present in the RW "and provides a positive indirect statement of the RW. The discrepancy between the information signs of the initiating and response replicas is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica. The indirect utterance of the RE as part of the response replica can be equivalent to an implicit or explicit marker of disagreement, and can also be in the logical-semantic relationship of conjunction or implication with it. In the latter case, RW acts, as a rule, as an antecedent of the left-hand implicative structure.

RE in a response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of RT, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement.

Rhetorical, the question in response can take the form of a quotation question. The main meaning of quotation RTs, as well as most of the ^ RTs, is the value of agreement / disagreement with the initiating remark, depending on its form. In most cases, like standard RTs, cited RTs are in relation to an implication with an implicit or explicit agree/disagree marker and are the antecedent of the implication.

Among the rhetorical quotation questions, a number of constructions stand out - rhetorical clichés, acting as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement. Rhetorical cliché Why not? and Why should.? express agreement or disagreement depending on the form of the initiating replica and illustrate the patterns characteristic of complete RTs.

A rhetorical cliché that expresses disagreement with the initiating remark, regardless of its form, is a RE-cliché containing "How can (could).?

Rhetorical clichés, the accompanying meaning of which is agreement / disagreement, regardless of the form of the initiating remark, are the clichés Who cares?, Who knows? and their semantic variants (What do I care?, Why should I care?, What does that matter?, What difference does it make?; How should I know?, etc.) The main meaning of these clichés is uncertainty, the interlocutor's reactions, and they implement the third pragmatic type of reactive remarks - avoidance of an answer.

Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such replies (as well as most of the reactive replicas) is the expression of agreement (full > or partial) or disagreement with the statement, realized by the indirect utterance of RV. Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.

In a number of DUs, the response cue is a reaction to the quesitive. In such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser differently. The addressee, who does not agree with the implication of the RW, deliberately interprets it as a quesitive, and reports information that refutes the content of the RW. In DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV becomes essential, i.e. there is a realization of the primary meaning of the indirect speech act.

A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such DUs are characterized as mismatched, since they have a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants due to the violation of the G.P. Relevance Postulate. Grice.

CONCLUSION

In this work, a rhetorical question is understood as a figure of speech, which consists in giving an affirmation or denial of an interrogative form in order to create a stylistic effect, attract increased attention, and increase the emotional tone of the utterance. Rhetoric is a stylistic and pragmatic function of a specific syntactic structure, the positivity and negativity of which are two sides of one phenomenon - a rhetorical question, which is characterized by an asymmetry in the affirmativeness of its formal and content characteristics. A positive RW "realizes a negative constative, while a negative RW is a form of realization of a positive constative. The presence of a statement in the form of a question and the asymmetry of the affirmativeness of the formal and meaningful characteristics of an interrogative sentence are recognized as the main signs of rhetoric. The absence of an informative answer to a RW is a characteristic, but not an obligatory sign of rhetoric .

A rhetorical question has all the syntactic forms of an interrogative sentence and all constructive structural forms. The most typical for RV are the forms of non-pronominal (both positive and negative in form) and pronominal question with any interrogative word. RE in the form of other syntactic types (alternative, disjunctive, declarative question) is rare; the rhetoric of such interrogative structures is determined by the context.

The rhetoric of context-dependent RW is revealed against the background of a context of various volumes. The context that reveals the meaning of the RE can be limited to the minimum context1 in the scope of one sentence preceding or following the RE; spread over several SFU or cover the volume of the entire work. The rhetoric of RT, which contains intertext - allusions, references, etc., as well as acting as a precedent statement, i.e. quotes, manifests itself against the background of the deep, background context of the work.

The rhetoric of context-free RT is determined by the syntactic and semantic completeness of the sentence. A significant group of RTs, the rhetoric of which is free from context, are questions; containing universal truth - an indisputable fact based on the phenomena of reality, universal values, social structure and norms of behavior in society. The obviousness and indisputability of the judgment contained in the RW excludes the possibility of its functioning as a quesitive, since it makes the request for information redundant. The universal truths expressed by the RW are distinguished by the “volume of universality” and include judgments, the indisputability of which is explained both by the objective processes of the surrounding world and universal values, and based on the subjective views and worldview of the speaker.

A special place among RT, the rhetoric of which does not depend on the context, is occupied by stable constructions (rhetorical clichés) - a group of interrogative sentences in the form that are often used in the meaning of RT, and therefore their quesitiveness is "erased".

The rhetorical question plays an essential role in the construction of the logical structure of the utterance, both in monologue and dialogic speech: an emphatic statement in the form of RV is, as a rule, an element of a causal or adversative relationship, a left-handed "or right-handed implication or anti-implication. B4 logical - the semantic structure of the utterance - RT plays the role of a cause (antecedent of implication), a consequence (consequent of implication) or a consequence "opposite to what is expected (anticosequent of anti-implication). The dominant position of RE in the composition of implicative SFU is the position of the consequent (consequence), which can be presented both in preposition and in postposition to the antecedent.

In monologue speech, a rhetorical question is used in any compositional speech form, however, it is most typical for reasoning both in the author's speech and in character speech, where it is used as a means of intensifying the utterance. the level of intensity (up to the twelfth degree - on the scale of intensity) RW implements in the author's reasoning - in a lyrical digression - and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position in the work, thus acting as a characteristic of the author's style and the author of the work as a linguistic personality .

In storytelling, RW is used to create an atmosphere of tension, a more vivid description of events, convey the feelings and experiences of heroes, and is more typical for delegated narration or for narration "in character speech. Bf objectified storytelling" RW is rare.

In the description, the rhetorical question serves as a means of expressing the author's attitude towards the described character (place) and is more typical for dynamic descriptions, which include > descriptions of the character, behavior, lifestyle, experiences of the character.

A rhetorical question is often used in monologue SPUs, which are a combination of two compositional-speech forms: narrative and reasoning or description and reasoning, where elements of reasoning containing the narrator's (character's) assessment of the events, people, etc. are presented as a rhetorical question. and reflecting the views of the author (narrator or character) regarding? one or another trait of character, deed, way of life of a character or thought inspired by the object of description.

The degree of intensification of the utterance presented by RW- in the narration and description varies from the first to the fourth scale of intensity.

The rhetorical question in dialogical unity is used as both a response and an initiating remark.

The main pragmatic functions of the RE-response cue is the expression of agreement or disagreement with the initiating cue. The form of expression of consent is affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expression of disagreement is affirmativeness, which coincides with the initiating remark. The presence of a negator of any level in the RE determines the grammatical and informational structure of its indirect utterance. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or grammatical negator expresses agreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. Positive in form RV * is a means of expressing agreement with a negative statement. Rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator, which is present in the composition of the RW*. The coincidence of signs-information of the initiating remark and the indirect utterance of the RE-response remark is a sign of agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response remark.

Positive in form, RE is a means of expressing disagreement with the initiating remark, which is a positive statement. A rhetorical question containing a lexical or "grammatical negator expresses disagreement with the initiating replica, which is a negative statement. The discrepancy between the signs of the information of the initiating replica and the RV-response replica is a sign of disagreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica.

An indirect utterance of a RT as part of a response replica can be equivalent to an implicit or explicit marker of disagreement, and can also be in a logical-semantic relation of conjunction or implication with it. In the latter case, the RE acts, as a rule, as an antecedent of the left-hand implicative structure.

RE" in the response can be a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement. In this case, the indirect statement of RE, implying disagreement with the interlocutor, is in relation to the anti-implication1 to the implicit or explicit means of expressing agreement.

A rhetorical question in a response "remark can take the form of a quotation question. The main meaning of quotation RTs; like most RTs, is the value of agreement / disagreement with the initiating remark, depending on its form. Among rhetorical quotation questions, a number of constructions stand out - rhetorical clichés as a means of expressing agreement / disagreement, both depending on and regardless of the form of the initiating remark.The pragmatic meaning of a number of clichéd quotation questions as a response is the uncertainty of the interlocutor's reaction, which implements avoidance of the answer.

Acting as an initiating remark DU, a rhetorical question can be accompanied by a reactive remark directly related to its content. The main pragmatic meaning of such response replicas (as well as the majority of reactive replicas) * is the expression of agreement (full or partial) or disagreement with the statement realized by the indirect statement RV: Such DUs are homogeneous constative DUs, consisting of two constatives.

In a series of DUs, the response response is a reaction to a quesitive. In such DUs, characterized as constative-quesitive, the addresser and the addressee interpret the illocutionary intention of the addresser differently. Addressee who does not agree with the implication RV; intentionally interprets it as a quesitive and reports information that refutes the content of the RE. In DE of this kind, the interrogative form RV becomes essential, i.e. there is a realization of the primary meaning of the indirect speech act.

A response to the RT that is not related to its content implies the interlocutor's refusal to discuss the issue raised by the RT by changing the topic of the conversation or stopping it. Such MUs are characterized as mismatched, since they are characterized by a mismatch of the communicative intentions of the communicants.

Thus, the study is a comprehensive approach to the study of such a phenomenon as a rhetorical question. The results obtained in the course of the study reflect the structural, semantic, pragmatic features of a rhetorical question, the features of its functioning in a dialogical and monologue text and can contribute to further research in the field of a rhetorical question, for example, in social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling communicative processes (verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions of the subject, etc.). I

List of scientific literature Belokolotskaya, Svetlana Aleksandrovna, dissertation on the topic "Germanic languages"

1. Akulenko V. V. Typology of adjectives of the Russian language, expressing the intensity of the attribute / V. V. Akulenko // Russian Linguistics. - Kyiv, 1978.-Vol. 14.-S. 82-89.

3. Andrievskaya A. M. Improper direct speech in the artistic prose of Louis Aragon / A. M. Andrievskaya Kyiv, 1967. - 170 p.

4. Apresyan Yu. D. Principles of semantic description of language units / Yu. D. Apresyan // Semantics and knowledge representation. Tartu: Publishing House of the Tartu State University. un-ta, 1980. - Issue. 519. - S. 3-24.

5. Arnold I. V. The value of a strong position for the interpretation of a literary text / I. V. Arnold // Foreign languages at school. - 1978. -№ 4. -S. 23-31.

6. Arnold I. V. Stylistics of the modern English language / I. V. Arnold. 2nd ed., revised. - M.: Enlightenment, 1981. - 295 p.

7. Arutyunova N. D. Dialogical citation (to the problem of someone else's speech) / N. D. Arutyunova // Questions of linguistics. - 1986. No. 1. - p. 50-64.

8. Arkhipova L. V. Rhetorical technique of auto-interpretation as a means of organizing discourse / on the material of English scientific prose: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / L. V. Arkhipova. St. Petersburg, 2002. - 23 p.

9. Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary of linguistic terms / O. S. Akhmanova. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966. - 608 p.

10. Bally S. French style / S. Bally. M.: Foreign Literature, 1961. - 394 p.

11. Babaitsev V.V. Russian language. Theory. / V. V. Babaitsev, L. D. Chesnokov. M.: Enlightenment, 1994. - 365 p.

12. Baranov A. N. Illocutionary compulsion in the structure of the dialogue / A. N. Baranov, G. E. Kreidlin // Questions of linguistics. 1992. - No. 2. - S. 84f -99.

13. Batalova I. K. Communicative, semantic-grammatical and stylistic organization of a coherent statement / I. K. Batalova // Structural and functional features of the sentence and text: - Sverdlovsk, 1989.-S. 19-31.

14. Bakhtin M. M. Word in the novel / M. M. Bakhtin // Questions of literature and aesthetics. M.: Fiction, 1975. - 502 p.

15. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity / M. M. Bakhtin. M., 1979. -423 s.t.

16. Berdnik L. F. Interrogative sentences with narrative f meaning in modern Russian: author. dis. . Candidate of Philology / L. F. Berdnik. Rostov-on-Don, 1974. - 23 p.

17. Berdnik L. F. Rhetorical question as an expressive means / L. F. Berdnik // Rhetoric and syntactic structures: theses of reports and messages. -Krasnoyarsk, 1988: S. 4-7.

18. Bogdanov VV Classification of speech acts / VV Bogdanov // Interpersonal aspects of language communication. - Kalinin: Kalinin state. un-t, 1989.-p. 26-37.

19. Bogdanov VV Silence as a zero speech act and its role in verbal communication / VV Bogdanov // Language communication and its units. - Kalinin: Publishing House of the Kalinin State. un-ta, 1986. S. 12-18.

20. Bogdanov VV Semantic-syntactic organization of the sentence. / V. V. Bogdanov. L .: Publishing House of the Leningrad University, 1977. - 63 p.

21. Bogdanov VV Text and text communication / VV Bogdanov. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1993. 67 p.

22. Bondarenko VN Negation as a logical-grammatical category / V: N. Bondarenko. M.: Nauka, 1983. - 212 p.

23. Bondarko A. V. Fundamentals of functional grammar. Language interpretation of the idea of time / A. V. Bondarko. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1999.-260 p.

24. Brandes MP Stylistics of the German language: a textbook for institutes and faculty. foreign lang. / M. P. Brandes. - M.: Higher School, 1983. - 271 p.

25. ByalousN. I. On the role of the end of the text in the process of text formation (on the basis of short stories by English and American writers) /

26. N. I. Byalous // Linguistic analysis of the text. Irkutsk, 1985. - S. 146-151.

27. Valyusinskaya 3. V. Issues of studying dialogue in the works of Soviet linguists / 3. V. Valyusinskaya // Text syntax. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 368 p.

28. Velik N. V. Rhetorical question in modern French colloquial language / N. V. Velik // Research in the field of humanities. Eagle, 1993.-167 p.1. SCH)

29. Vendler 3. Illocutionary suicide / 3. Vendler // New in foreign linguistics: Issue. XVI. M.: Progress, 1986. - 238-250.

30. Zvegintsev V. A. Proposition and its relation to language and speech / V. A. Zvegintsev. M., 1976. - 213 p.

31. Vinogradov V. V. Improper direct speech and its varieties / / V. V. Vinogradov M., 1963. - 90 p.

32. Vinokur T. G. Characteristics of the structure of the dialogue in the evaluation f of a dramatic work / T. G. Vinokur // The language and style of the writer in literary critical analysis artwork. - t Kishinev, 1977. S. 64-72.

33. Vinokur T. G. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / T. G. Vinokur. -M., 1990.-S. 217.

34. Vlakhov S. Untranslatable in translation / S. Vlakhov, S. Florin. M.: Higher. school, 1986. - 416 p.

35. Wolf E. M. Functional semantics of evaluation / E. M. Wolf. M.: Nauka, 1985.-228s.f. 45. Vorobyov Yu.K. Rhetorical figures: workshop / Yu. K. Vorobyov. -Saransk: Publishing House of the Mordovian University, 1993. 98 pp.

Imagine that you are stopped after every second word, pointing out mistakes in pronunciation, grammar, and so on. In the end, this conversation will be perceived as a negative experience. Forget the mistakes, just be happy with what your students say. Yes! Look how well they speak! It is possible that there are many grammatical errors in their speech, and their opinion is erroneous, but isn't it enough just that they use English to express their own attitude?!

Students, especially at the initial stage of language learning, are easily distracted, lose their train of thought if the teacher constantly interrupts them. Of course, you will want to correct mistakes directly during speech, but keep nodding, smiling, because if you start interrupting a student, then the miracle of overcoming the fear of public speaking may not happen, and the student will remain a brilliant connoisseur of English grammar who does not dare speak for fear of making a mistake.

Undoubtedly, all the most typical mistakes should be summarized, analyzed, but after speaking, perhaps at, or in a separate lesson.

Show students that you consider their needs and interests!

We all like to talk about topics that are close to us, referring to a funny story in our childhood, in our everyday life and life in our country - talking about our own experience in a particular issue, we feel our own significance. Why not ask the students at the stage of explaining the topic to the teacher with the question: “What do you think?”. If a teacher, whom we respect, is interested in your opinion, and it really matters to him, this can be a great incentive to start using the language being studied.

Provide students with key ideas of the topic being discussed

One of the things that I use all the time is a diagram, or a set of key ideas or questions (“Life Map” or “Net work”) that are worth discussing when analyzing a particular topic. "Life Map" allows students to see signal points that can be relied upon at the moment of speech.

If visual cues fail, give students language constructs to support while speaking.

Often the key to unlocking a student’s potential lies on the surface, sometimes it’s just a matter of offering students a few language constructs, explaining the use cases that will help them connect disparate ideas together, and as a result, you get an excellent answer on a given topic. The teacher can simply write language structures such as In my opinion…, Personally…, As far as I know… on the board to help students express their own opinions.

Use pair and group work to develop your speaking skills!

Well organized allows students to feel more free and relaxed while speaking. The practical use of language, combined with the creativity of group work, can have a positive impact on student motivation.

Give students time to respond

Is it realistic to expect that each student will be able to instantly answer the question posed? Of course not. Some students need time to think about a question or situation. So if you want them to "finally" talk, you need to give them those precious seconds they need. If this is difficult for you, ask them a question and give them time to think, and in the meantime discuss the issue with other students who are willing to answer.

Use learning aids

The use of interesting audio material, videos, excerpts from favorite videos and cartoons, thematic pictures, cards with role-playing tasks will help organize a favorable environment for oral communication.

Don't waste class time with useless stories, give this opportunity to students

Often the teacher tries to take a leadership position during the speaking process, not suspecting that the students themselves are able to come to a solution to a particular problem, one has only to give them the opportunity and encourage their activity in every possible way. Do not fill the silence in class with useless chatter. Of course, you can discuss everyday problems with students, but leave it for the very beginning or end of the lesson, or, even better, for recess. During the lesson, try to focus all your efforts on getting the students to speak. Try to give students the opportunity to ask questions to each other. Encourage students who ask questions that require reflection and a detailed answer. The teacher should perform a regulatory function throughout the lesson.

Imagine that you do not understand your native language

If students try to say something in their native language, just say that you don't understand them. Ask them to say what they want in English. Try to keep this situation not stressful and have a comic character, which, ultimately, will have a practical result.

Reduce the difficulty level of the question posed, depending on the level of knowledge of the student

Create an atmosphere of everyone's involvement in the speaking process by asking easier questions to students who are reluctant to speak during the lesson, gradually increasing the level of difficulty of the questions.

Try to be a little more compassionate and tolerant

Put yourself in the shoes of students who are required to speak in a language that is foreign to them. Naturally, you will feel insecure at first, awkward and hardly willing to start talking from the very beginning of the lesson. The teacher needs to pre-set the students in the right way and create an atmosphere conducive to communication.

Don't humiliate!

Students often give short or incorrect answers because, in fact, they have nothing to say in this issue or they are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the given topic. Instead of humiliating a student by giving their answer a negative assessment, help your students by asking them appropriate follow-up questions and pushing them to correct judgment or answer.

In conclusion, it is worth saying that just watching and waiting for your students to speak English is not enough. In my opinion, the trust factor is the key to success in acquiring oral communication skills. Once the student has confidence that sooner or later he will begin to speak English at a high level and the teacher will undoubtedly support him in this, his success in this difficult task will be significant. The duty of the teacher is not only to teach, but also to motivate students to express their own thoughts in the language being studied.

Introduction

CHAPTER 1. Rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature and in the system of expressing the category of intensity 15

1.1. Rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature 15

CHAPTER 2 Rhetorical question, its structural and syntactic features and contextual conditionality 31

2.1. Rhetorical question, its syntactic features and structural forms 31

2.1.1 Syntactic types of rhetorical question 31

2.1.2 Structural forms of a rhetorical question 35

2.2. Contextual conditionality of a rhetorical question 39

2.2.1. A rhetorical question whose rhetoric is not

depends on the context 39

2.2.2. Rhetorical question, the rhetoric of which depends on the context 48

CHAPTER 3 Rhetorical question in monologue unity 63

3.2. Rhetorical question in the reasoning of the character 77

3.3. Rhetorical question in narrative 91

3.4. Rhetorical question in description 99

Findings 107

CHAPTER 4 Rhetorical question in dialogic unity

4.1. Rhetorical question as a reply 110

4.1.1. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing consent 112

4.1.2. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing disagreement 123

4.1.3. Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing partial agreement / disagreement 134

4.1.4. Rhetorical question - a component of a dialogical quotation in a response as a means of expression

agreement / disagreement 136

4.2. Rhetorical question as an initiating remark 154

4.2.1. Rhetorical question in constative dialogic units 155

4.2.2. Rhetorical question in constative-quesitive dialogical unities 157

4.2.3. Rhetorical question in discordant dialogic units 161

Findings 163

Conclusion 167

List of references 173

List of sources of examples 191

List of dictionaries 197

Introduction to work

However, in the existing interpretations of the rhetorical question
there are a number of contradictions. In some works, a rhetorical question
is called expressively colored negation [Russian Grammar 1980:
395], in others - an affirmative message or motivation [Great 1993: 138],
in the third, a hidden affirmation or denial [Zhinkin 1955; Akhmanova
1966; Skrebnev 1975; Berdnik 1988; Babaitsev, Chesnokova 1994; Khaikova 1999;
Quirk, Greenbaum et al. 1994]. The very term "rhetorical question" is often
replaced by the terms "pseudo-interrogative sentence",

"non-interrogatively used interrogative sentence",

"expressive-stating interrogative sentence", "false question",

5 “false question”, “imaginary question”, “pseudo question” [Bally 1961: 308; Restan 1972; Dolinin 1978; Chkhetiani 1987; Syuzyumova 1989; Smirnova 1989; Krasnykh 1992].

In* different studies touch on certain aspects
interrogative sentences that can be interpreted as
rhetorical questions. So, in the work of L.A. Ostroukhova. considered
exclusively non-pronominal interrogative sentences,

functioning as reactive cue. Research by S.S. Kotovskaya is dedicated to the role prosody in the differentiation of the German rhetorical 1 question. T. A. Sergeeva considers rhetorical! question in> German dialogic speech.

Thus, such a * problem as the development of the generally accepted concept of "rhetorical question" has not yet found its solution, there is no single approach to identifying the fundamental features of rhetoric, there is no systematic description of the structural, semantic and pragmatic features of the rhetorical question; there are no works in which the functions of the rhetorical question, its role, in the logical-semantic structure of the superphrasal unity* and in the system of intensification of the utterance-is investigated.

The relevance of research due to the prevalence of rhetorical questions in speech and the lack of a systematic description of their structural, semantic, stylistic features, their functions as an intensifier of the statement in monologue / dialogic speech, correlation - affirmative characteristics of the parts. DE, places in the logical-semantic structure of SFU.

and implicit characteristics, their autonomous and contextually related meanings.

7 a structure alternating a chain of sentences formed by the alternation of statements by two or more participants in a speech act [Bloch 2000: 116; Moskalskaya 1981: 123].

8 the course is a condition for normal communication [Komina 1983: 127-128; Susov 1984: 7; Pocheptsov 1986: 74; Romanov 1989: 41 and others].

The leading role in the formation of the DU structure belongs to pragmatic factors [Gasteva 1990: 3]. The pragmatic meaning of the response cue is inextricably linked with the pragmatic meaning of the initiating cue, i.e. it is largely determined by the pragmatic type-DE, of which the response is a part. The correlation of pragmatic types of sentences AND "pragmatic types of DU allows us to distinguish between DU by the final intention of the speech act constituting the initiating * cue. All pragmatic types of sentences distinguished in pragmatic syntax, based on the structure of the speech act without taking into account the two-way nature of communication, can be attributed to types used as the first part of the DU [Chikurova 1985: 129-135].In this study, we take as a basis the classification of speech acts proposed by G.G. performative, directive, quesitive, - supplementing it with some other types of speech acts (phatic, emotive, etc.).

object research is a rhetorical question as an intensifier of the statement, its structural and stylistic features, contextual conditionality, role in dialogic and monologue text structures.

theoretical basis research are the achievements of domestic and foreign linguistics in the field of text linguistics [Dyck 1976; Galperin 1981; Moskalskaya 1981; Goncharova 1983; Kukharenko 1988; Bogdanov 1993; Paducheva 1996; Gak 2000 and others], pragmatists [Austin 1986; Searle 1986; G. G. Pocheptsov 1971, 1981; G. G. Pocheptsov (Jr.) 1983, 1987; Susov 1980, 1983, 1986; O. G. Pocheptsov 1986; Semenenko 1996; Makarov 1998 and others]", cognitive linguistics [Dyck 1989; Paducheva 1996 and others], stylistics [Galperin 1977; Arnold 1981, Skrebnev, 1975, 1985; Turansky 1990, 1991 and others].

Target research consists in the implementation of a comprehensive, integral approach to the study of such a complex phenomenon as a rhetorical question.

The goal is subject to the decision of the following tasks research:

1) identify the structural and syntactic features of rhetorical
question;

analyze the conditions for the dependence of a rhetorical question on the context;

determine the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of superphrasal unity;

describe the functions of a rhetorical question in monologue speech (author's / character; external / internal), determine the level of intensity of the statement represented by a rhetorical question;

describe the ratio of affirmative characteristics of a rhetorical question and initiating / response replicas in a dialogical unity.

Scientific novelty dissertation is that in it for the first time
an attempt was made to take an integrated approach to the study of rhetorical
question: a systematic description of its structural-syntactic,
semantic, pragmatic, stylistic features, correlation
affirmative characteristics of parts of a dialogical unity in which
a rhetorical question acts as an initiating or reciprocal remark;
its role as an intensifier in monologues is determined
superphrasal unities, the place of the rhetorical question in the logical
semantic structure of the text; contextual
conditionality of rhetorical questions is described

dependence / independence of rhetorical questions from the context.

The paper gives a definition of a rhetorical question, which reflects the linguistic nature of the phenomenon under study; signs of rhetoric are described.

Theoretical significance work lies in the fact that it defines the place of a rhetorical question in the system of means * expressing the semantic category of intensity in English; the role of a rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of monological and dialogic SPU is described; the mechanism of interaction between the affirmativeness of the RE and the affirmativeness of the reacting / initiating replica in DU was revealed; structural-semantic types of rhetorical questions are described; the conditions for dependence / independence of RT from the context are defined. The results obtained may contribute to further "research in the field of the rhetorical question, for example, in the social and gender aspects, as well as a deeper theoretical development of modeling-communicative processes." (Verbalization and understanding, revealing the true communicative intentions of 4 subjects, etc.).

Practical value work is determined by the possibility of using the results of the study in lecture courses and seminars on general linguistics, theoretical grammar, English style, special courses on linguistics of text and colloquial speech, in the practice of teaching English, in compiling teaching aids for managing term papers and theses.

The solution of the problems formulated was carried out by applying a complex research methodology. Main analysis method is a transformation method. The procedure for identifying an indirect statement of a rhetorical question is the transformation of an interrogative structure into an affirmative one (positive or negative in form):

Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw 1: 60) -» I should not waste your time in discussing what is inevitable.

Isn "t the answer obvious? (Sheldon: 362) - > The answer is obvious.

In this work, we also used analysis methods as a contextual-semantic, statistical method of logical-semantic analysis.

This dissertation completes the list of works that use logical tools. The advantage of the logical-semantic approach is that a simple logical toolkit is used as a means of obtaining new linguistic data about the types of text structures. The term "logical-semantic" reflects the essence of the approach: semantics is the goal of research, logic and its apparatus are the means [Inshina 1989: 7]. Formal logic describes relationships between logical objects using five intentional connectives: conjunctions (connection of the type "A and B" -AlB), disjunctions (connection of the type "A or B" - AvB), denial (connection of the form "A, not A" - A, A), implications "If A, then B" - AzB), and equivalence(connection of the form "A, that is B" - A~B) [Kondakov 1976: 149-150, 192-193, 264, 421-423, 677]. To this list should be added the relation anti-implications ("A, but not B" - AB)! , which combines signs of negation and implication and is expressed in opposing and concessive structures [Chikurova 1981, 1987].

Research material compiled about 5,000 examples derived from the works of English and American authors, including fiction and

1 Following M.F. Chikurova here uses a sign to designate anti-implication, which reflects the conjunction of the elements of the surface structure and the disjunction of the deep structure [Chikurova 1991]

12 journalistic texts, as well as the material of the Dictionary of Quotations (The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations).

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

Rhetorical. the question is an intensifier, the degree of intensity of which increases with the increase in the number of intensifiers in its composition.

The rhetorical question has all the syntactic forms * of the interrogative sentence and all the structural forms.

3. A rhetorical question in monologue, unity is used mainly in reasoning or is an element 1 of reasoning * in * as part of other compositional speech forms, participating in the formation of a logical-semantic implication or anti-implication, expressing cause, effect or effect, The intensity of the rhetorical question in Argument 1 can reach the twelfth degree on the scale of intensity.

A rhetorical question in dialogic unity is used as both an initiating and a response remark: In the role of a response, a rhetorical question expresses both agreement and disagreement with the initiating remark. The form of expressing consent is "affirmativeness, which does not coincide with the initiating remark, the form of expressing disagreement is affirmativeness, coinciding with the initiating remark.

The rhetorical question is an amalgamated speech act and is introduced in the text by verbs of speaking (to say, to tell, etc.): The possibility of introducing RV 1 with the verb to ask, characteristic of the quesitive, is proof of the essentiality of the interrogative form of RV, which realizes the primary meaning of indirect speech 1 act. Another proof of the importance of the form of RW is * the possibility of answering it. Interrogativeness as the meaning of the form is, intensifier

13 statements and the third sign of the importance of the direct meaning of the indirect speech act.

Approbation of work was carried out at scientific conferences of teachers of the Department of Linguistics and Translation of the Tula State University (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005), at the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Languages and the Picture of the World" (Tula State University, 2002); at scientific and methodological seminars of graduate students. Based on the research materials, seven scientific articles have been published.

In the introduction the relevance of the dissertation work is substantiated, the goals and objectives of the study are determined, as well as the material, methods and techniques of research, the procedure for identifying the indirect meaning of a rhetorical question (PQ) is described, the structure of the dissertation is specified, the provisions submitted for defense are formulated.

In the first chapter the theoretical aspect of the problem under study is presented.

In the second chapter the structural and semantic features of the RW, its contextual conditionality are considered.

In the third chapter the functioning of RW as an intensifier of monologue (author's and character) speech is considered, the degree of intensification of the statement represented by a rhetorical question is determined, the use of RW in compositional speech forms of the text is described, the place of the rhetorical question in the logical-semantic structure of the monologue SFU is determined.

In the fourth chapter the ratio of the affirmative characteristics of the RE and the affirmative characteristics of the initiating or response DU replica interacting with it is presented.

In custody the results of the study are formulated, the general result of the work is summed up.

Rhetorical question in modern linguistic literature

Modern domestic and foreign linguistic literature provides a number of definitions of a rhetorical question, illustrating the authors' different understanding of the nature of the phenomenon under study.

So, in modern rhetoric, RW is characterized as “an effective figure of dialogization of monologue speech, which serves to semantic and emotional highlight its semantic centers, to form the emotional and evaluative attitude of the addressee to the subject of speech, as well as to present to the addressee the stages of reasoning that are especially important in the semantic sense (evidence )” [Mikhalskaya 1996: 240-241]. Thus, RW is considered as a rhetorical figure, one of the expressive means used to intensify and semantic organization of speech in order to increase the power of its impact on the addressee.

A similar approach to the definition of RW is presented by British and American explanatory dictionaries: Rhetorical question, a question asked, as in oratory or writing, only for rhetorical effect, to emphasize a point, introduce a topic, etc., no answer being expected. The term "rhetorical" is defined only as "pertaining to rhetoric": Rhetorical 1. of having the nature of or according to rhetoric. 2. using or characterized mere by rhetoric, or artificial eloquence; showy or elaborate in style. Rhetorically 1. in a rhetorical manner. 2. according to, or from the standpoint of, rhetoric. Rhetorical question. A question to which one does not expect an answer . Rhetorical question, a question asked, and not expecting any answer .

French explanatory dictionaries do not interpret the rhetorical question, limiting themselves to the concepts of "rhetorical devices" and "rhetorical figures". The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. Dahl interprets the question in a similar way, in which “rhetorical figures” and “rhetorical tropes” are distinguished, and the concept of “rhetorical” is characterized as “related to rhetoric, rhetoric” [Dal 1995: 97].

A number of studies in the field of linguistics are devoted to rhetorical figures and devices as means of “enhancing expressiveness” [Vorobiev 1993, Presnukhina 2000, Deminova 2002, Kataeva 2002]. The term "rhetorical" is interpreted in a number of dissertations as "organizing discourse" [Zaretskaya 1999, Arkhipova 2002, Glivenkova 2002].

As a rhetorical figure, RV is considered in textbooks on stylistics and grammar. Thus, in The Style of Modern English, I. V. Arnold defines a rhetorical question as the most studied form of transposition in stylistics. A rhetorical question does not imply an answer and is not posed in order to induce the listener to tell something unknown to the speaker. The function of a rhetorical question is to attract attention, enhance the impression, increase the emotional tone, create elation. The answer has already been suggested in it, and RW only involves the reader / speaker in reasoning or experiencing, making him more active, allegedly forcing him to draw a conclusion [Arnold 1981: 167] Thus, all interrogative sentences that do not require an answer and increase emotional tone, i.e., the emotional richness of the utterance and the lack of an informative answer, are among the main features of rhetoric. This position is shared by a number of researchers.

In the French style of Charles Bally, a rhetorical (false) question is an indirect expressive means that symbolizes a more or less definite group of feelings, using the expressiveness of the voice for this purpose [Bally 1961: 308].

In the “Communicative Grammar of the German Language” by L. M. Mikhailov, RW is defined as “an emotional reaction to the statement of the interlocutor (dialogue), or a way of emotionally expressive presentation of any fragment of speech” [Mikhailov 1994: 70].

In the "Grammar of the German Language" by R. Weinrich, rhetorical questions are such questions that are not expected to have an informative answer, since they serve to arouse the listener's interest in the information presented in interrogative form about a certain state of affairs. As the main signs of rhetoric, only the absence of an informative answer and the function of attracting the attention of listeners to the statement (a rhetorical feature) performed by the RW are singled out here.

According to the Norwegian Slavist Per Restan, “rhetorical questions from a functional point of view are pseudo-questions, since the speaker himself knows perfectly well what he is “asking” about ..., a rhetorical question is not asked in order to obtain some information, but, on the contrary, in order to convey some information to the interlocutor, to inform him of his opinion, to convince him of something” [Restan 1972: 97].

T. D. Chkhetiani defines RW as a linguistic universal, a special semantic-syntactic construction, which is characterized as a pseudo- and false question, an imaginary question intended to receive an obvious answer, a deliberate question in redundancy, a question with a suggested answer [Chkhetiani 1987].

Rhetorical question, its syntactic features and structural forms

One of the most common forms of RE is a non-pronominal (general) question, both positive and negative in form, which is characterized by the absence of pronominal interrogative words and is a request for information regarding the reliability of the new that is reported in the previous statement [Pocheptsov 1981: 178] .

Negative in form, a non-pronominal rhetorical question (containing a grammatical negator) implies an affirmative constative in an indirect statement:

(1) Brother, don't I feel as bad about it as you do? (Hemingway 3, 42). The indirect statement of RV (1) is the statement: Brother, I feel as bad about it as you do.

Another kind of RT in the form of a non-pronominal question is an interrogative sentence that does not contain grammatical negation, which implements a negative constative in an indirect statement:

(2) "Is there anyone in the world", cried Miss Waterfood, "who can put such a wealth of wit and satire and comic observation into a semi-colon?" (Maugham 5, 108). The indirect statement RV (2) has the form of a negative constative: There is no one in the world... who can put such a wealth of wit and satire and comic observation into a semi-colon.

The form of the special question is also characteristic of RW. Depending on the interrogative word that occupies the initial position in the sentence, subspecies of pronominal RVs can be distinguished.

A common variation of the pronominal RW is a question to the subject (who-question), which can be positive in form and imply a negative constative:

(3) But who does hawk at eagles with a dove? (Herbert, 188). - Nobody hawks at eagles with a dove. Less common are pronominal RVs that are negative in form, implying a positive constative:

(4) Who wouldn't like it? It's so beautiful (Galsworthy, 59). -» Everyone would like it. It's so beautiful. Questions containing the interrogative pronoun Who can act as a question to the addition:

(5) "Who did you ever treat square, you rummy?" I told him. "You d double cross your mother" (Hemingway 3, 38). -» You never treated anyone square. The interrogative pronoun What in an interrogative sentence (what-question), functioning as a RV, can introduce a question that coincides in form with the question to the complement:

(6) What can I say that will enable you to understand the depth of my sorrow? (M. Shelley, 227). - I cannot say anything that will enable you to understand the depth of my sorrow. Example (7) has the form of a predicative question:

(7) After all, what was this man to him? (Hemingway 2, 20). -» After all, this man was nothing to him. RV with the interrogative pronoun What can take the form of a question for definition:

(8) "What worse trouble are you going to get in than you are in now?" he said. "What the hell worse trouble is there than starving?" (Hemingway 3, 81) - You are not going to get in a worse trouble than you are in now. There is no worse trouble than starving. PB with the pronoun What in example (9) has the form of a question to the subject:

(9) What may not be expected in the country of the eternal light? (M. Shelley, 2). -» Everything may be expected in the country of the eternal light. In the following example, PB is in the form of a question to the circumstance of the goal:

(10) Catherine stared at the waxen figure of her mother in her casket, dressed in a simple black dress with a white collar, and thought what a wasted life it had been. What had it all been for? (Sheldon, 30).- It had all been for nothing.

One of the most common pronominal PBs is a question to the circumstance of reason with the interrogative pronoun Why (why-question). As a rule, they contain modal verb should in both affirmative (11) and negative (12) forms: (11) Why should I waste your time in discussing what is inevitable? (Shaw 1, 60). - I shouldn't waste your time in discussing what is inevitable (12) Why shouldn't he work with his hands? (Hemingway 2, 38). - There is no reason why he shouldn't work with his hands. - He should work with his hands.

PB, having the form of a question to the circumstance of the course of action (how-questions), are used, as a rule, to express regret, disappointment, surprise, sometimes dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction, irritation: (13) "How am I to live on that?" cry Mrs. Albert Forrester. "I have my position to keep up" (Maugham 5, 119).-» I cannot live on that. Example (14) contains PB with How many: (14) "Thou understand that there is to be no attack on the post until thou hearest the falling of the bombs?"

Rhetorical question in the author's reasoning

RE is a characteristic feature of the author's reasoning and plays an important role in the emphatic presentation of the author's position. The RV form is an intensifier of the first degree. The presence of additional lexical and syntactic intensifiers in the composition of the RE increases the degree of its intensity.

The use of various linguistic means in the author's reasoning, including the means! intensification, serves as its autocharacteristic. The semantic structure of the text, the intensives and intensifiers interspersed in it, reflect and reveal the linguistic personality of the creator of the work. The number of intensifiers in the speech of an individual, their diversity and variation speaks of the level of personality development, language competence! producer, his temperament and individual preferences - ultimately, about the level of expansive personality [Turansky 1990: 15-37; 1991: 110-115].

The author's speech is a heterogeneous category, because in addition to the image of the author, it includes the speech plan of the narrator, or the narrator. The main thing in the work - its idea - is realized through multiple author's assessments, which can be directly stated by the author in assessing the speeches, thoughts, actions of the character or not explicitly expressed, although not necessarily and inevitably present in the text.

The realization of the relationship between the author and the narrator is manifested in. degree-distance of the author of the work from the events depicted, i.e. in the degree of separation - the plan of the author and the plan of the character. The degree of distance may vary depending on the author's choice of the type of narrator. Distinguish objectified (authorial, epically distant) and subjective (personified), narration (narration "from the character", delegated speech) [Brandes 1971: 64-72; Dolinin 1985: 181-220; Domashnev et al. 1983: 60; Kukharenko 1988: 144-148; Paducheva 1996: 203-204].

Objectified narration is conducted in the third person by a non-personalized narrator, as close as possible to the author. Such a narrator does not belong to the protagonists of a work of art and does not participate in a work of art, but acts as an outside observer. The status of truth inherent in the voice of the narrator, combined with the freedom of composition, gives the author the opportunity to directly express his assessments and judgments about the events of the story, to generalize, philosophize, etc.

As V.A. Kukharenko notes, in the author's own presentation, it is the reasoning that is the compositional-speech form in which the author declares his position in the most direct way. Being a generalized representation of the author's point of view, it is autonomous and can be applied to several similar situations, and not only to the one in connection with which it arose. The logical and semantic universality of reasoning separates it from a specific plot. Such a separation is fixed by the term "lyrical digression". The author, expressing his attitude to the problems that make up the concept of the work, addresses the reader directly [Kukharenko 1988: 133-135, 143]. Such communication is characterized by unidirectionality (it develops only from the author to the reader) and is transtextual (external textual) [Paducheva 1986: 199-208]. The communicative activity of the author and the reader is carried out through the text, which acts as "an independent intellectual formation that overcomes space and time" [Popova 2001: 88].

Let us consider the features of the functioning of the RP in the monologue-author's-speech, determine its place in the logical-semantic structure of the monologue and the degree of intensification of the statement presented by it.

In example (1), the RE has the form of a stylistically colored elliptical sentence: (1) For young people could not talk. And why should they? Shout, embrace; swing, be up and down; carry sugar to pomes; kiss and caress the snouts of adorable chows; and then, alHingling and streaming; plunge and swim. (Woolf, 185).

The intensity of the expression of the utterance represented by RW-(1) is made up of two intensifiers4: 1) the shape of RW; 1) a stylistically colored elliptical sentence. The combination of intensifiers gives the utterance a second degree of intensity.

RE in the initial position of the monologue SFU determines the topic of discussion and sets the reader up for reflection. RV! (1) together with the preceding sentence - the conjunct РВ (For young people could not talk. And they should!; not.) performs the function of an antecedent of the right-hand implication. The following reasoning is the justification for the statement expressed by RW and its conjunct5:

For young people could not talk. And they shouldn't. (because) . Shout, embrace, swing, be up and down; carry sugar to. pomes; kiss and caress the snouts of adorable chows; and then, all tingling and streaming, plunge and swim. (SiAS2(r))= S In example (2) from W. Thackeray's novel "Vanity Fair" the expressiveness of the utterance consists of a larger number of intensifiers: (2) The war-chroniclers who write brilliant stories of fight and triumph scarcely tell us of these. These are too mean parts of the pageant; and you don't hear widows cries or mothers sobs in the midst of the shouts and jubilation in the great chorus of victory. And yet, when was the time that such have not cried out, heart broken, humble protestants, unheard in the uproar of triumph? (Thackeray 1, 333).

The intensity of expression of the utterance represented by RW (2) consists of the following intensifiers: 1) the form of RW 2) metaphor (heart broken), 3) metaphor (uproar of triumph), 4) epithet (humble), 5) absolute participial construction (heart broken, humble protestants).

Note that absolute constructions are classified as stylistic means: "The absolute construction is ... basically a feature of literary style and unfit to colloquial speech. Only a few more or less settled formulas such as weather permitting may be found in ordinary conversation. Otherwise colloquial speech practically always has subordinate clauses where literary style may have absolute constructions.

Rhetorical question in response as a means of expressing consent

An utterance is positive or negative depending on the absence and presence of negators in it (regardless of the means of their expression) and their number [Chikurova 2000: 149]. The factor that determines the general nature of the informational structure of an utterance is the interaction of grammatical and lexical means of expressing negation [Panfilov 1982: 180; Kondakov 1967: 144]. An even number of negators forms an affirmation, an odd number a negation [Bondarenko 1983: 138]. Thus, in this work, a positive statement is considered to be a statement expressed by a positive (not containing negators) sentence or by a negative sentence containing an even number of negators.

RW, characterized by the asymmetry of formal and content characteristics, implements significant linguistic features in the function of expressing consent. Thus, the negative form of RE (containing an odd number of negators) is used as a means of expressing agreement with the positive statement contained in the initiating remark. At the same time, rhetoric is a negator that interacts with a grammatical or lexical negator, which is present in the RT:

In quesitiene DUs, agreement expressed by a rhetorical question is an affirmative answer, the author of which emphasizes the obviousness of the information requested: (1) "Did you see what they were chasing him with?" - "Why wouldn't I see?" Pablo said. (Hemingway 1:160).

The initiating remark in DE (1) is a positive interrogative sentence: The response is a rhetorical question with one grammatical negator (not). An indirect statement of RV (1) is "a positive statement: There s no reasonwhy I wouldn't see what they were chasing him with, containing an even number (two) of grammatical negators. The coincidence of information signs of indirect statements of the initiating and response replicas determines agreement as a pragmatic meaning of the response replica.

Full form of response replica with restored! consent marker, represents an affirmative answer to the question formulated in the initiating remark: Yes, I did because there s no reason-why I wouldn t see what they were chasing him with.

The indirect statement RV (1) is an argumentation of agreement and contains an antecedent of the implicative logical-semantic structure of the response remark; whose consequent is implicit consent. In a formal notation, a reciprocal response of this type can be written as follows: Sys \u003d RWh

In a rhetorical question, negation can be represented by lexical means, in this case the function. RT in DE is no different from the analogous function of RT with grammatical negation: (2) "Is it true, Pilar?" he asked me. "When did I lie to you?" I told him (Hemingway 1,161). PB (2) contains one lexical negator (the verb of negative semantics to lie, the negative information of the root morpheme of which is fixed in the dictionary definition containing the negation marker: to lie - to give an untrue statement). The indirect utterance PB (2), as in PB (1), is a positive constant formed as a result of the interaction of two negators - lexical and grammatical - as part of the indirect utterance PB: I never lied to you.

The logical-semantic connection between the implicit agreement and the indirect utterance RV (2) as part of the indirect utterance of the response becomes obvious when the verb to know is introduced into the indirect utterance, which, along with other verbs of opinion and mental state (to believe, to suppose, etc.) refers to parenthetical verbs. Without a long form, parenthetic verbs do not indicate a specific process, i.e. have no descriptive meaning. The verbs of this group are used to indicate (but not describe) the evidential situation in which the statement is made, and signal how much certainty should be attributed to the statement, preparing the hearer to assess the emotional significance, logical relevance and degree of validity of the statement. Acting as a signal that directs the listener to the correct assessment of the statement in a social, logical and evidential context, parenthetic verbs can be used as introductory expressions, in a general grammatical sense or with the union that, joining in both cases to a declarative sentence [Urmson 1985: 196-216 ].

The artistic purpose of the French vocabulary in the novel by A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" and the issues of its translation into English Kashkovskaya, Marina Vitalievna