ЭТИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТ КОСВЕННО-РЕЧЕВЫХ АКТОВ В ОФИЦИАЛЬНО-ДЕЛОВОЙ СФЕРЕ

According to traditional objects the modern language theory is characterized by growing multidimensionality. Within the context of the official business speech (OBS) this tendency reveals variously. Nowadays there is an active search for the conditions which contribute both to lingvopragmatic enrichment of OBS, especially in works of 2016 [2; 3] and usage of indirect speech acts (SA) as well as other units of the secondary pragmatization [3; 5, etc.]. We discuss the pragmatic component within the OBS context and in connection with ethical characteristics.

This epistemic situation serves as premises for the task solved in the present article, i.e. to plan the interaction of those means which define the indirect character of SA in OBS and communicative ethical aspects.

Our empirical material consists of two English-language documents which are devoted to special projects, characterizing didactic traditions as well as reflecting normative educational settings of Oxford university (they are represented on a number of websites as follows: www.wipo.int). The suggested objective is discussed in accordance with the two interconnected aspects: conceptual and systematic-empirical.

First, we are going to discuss the conceptual aspect. It assumes the reference to speech act and ethical characteristics. The given material induces us to rely on signs of some types of speech acts as follows: dominant of a message, explanation (expositive); responsibility moment (representative); planning moment (commissive); appeal (directive); determination to change (declarative); expression of psychological state connected with sincerity condition (expressive).

Those signs own systemic importance, confirmed by their characteristic in the generic source that is integrated to new observations. It should be mentioned that the strengthened justification in which the direct and indirect SA settings are integrated seems to be peculiar for representatives, while figurative units compatible to official dominants remain inherent to expressives.

Now let us stipulate the attention to ethical characteristics. In this way, the specifics both of the pragmalinguistic task and empirical material make us take into account socio-ethical concept of A. Giddens which is actively developed both by him and his followers. A number of concepts are connected with it, such as: "act", "reflexive consciousness", "motivation", "rationalization", "effects". These ideas are based on human wish of "rationalization of actions", in many respects supporting "complete theoretical idea" of "motives of own actions" [1]. We should emphasize that this concept has something in common with general Aristotelian ideas about a man who is "a public being", oriented to the perception of good-and-evil categories, justice and injustice, social and biological.

Thus, being a participant of a SA and speech interaction the man should have all specified characteristics. Obviously, such deep connection between lingvopragmatics and ethics can be defined in this aspect. Thus, public life ethics, doctrine about ethical duties and relations, caused by human life in any society, as well as the social context consideration of some questions about due and undue, opportunities and duties are relevant.

Secondly, having pointed the first conceptual aspect out, we will keep on discussing the correlated one, i.e. the systematic and empirical aspect. Taking into account the features noted above, we consider admissible to allocate two main subsystems in our empirical material, including: (1) correlation of lingvopragmatic and ethical characteristics; (2) ethical interpretation of SA’s indirect nature.

Respectively, we will use the two working concepts. This is the correlation carrier, i.e. a unit, a unity, a pragmema, where the mutual compliance of lingvopragmatics and ethics is concentrated. Another working concept, interconnected with the first one, is the interpretation marker, i.e. a unit, a unity, a pragmema which defines the ethical aspect of the indirect nature of SA. We think that this sphere suggests a certain restricting system: pragmatic conditions and settings contribute to some combinations. They simultaneously sharply reduce the possibility of others or just except them completely. These restrictions and preferences are bilaterally significant. They, for one, show the deep specifics of pragmatics. At the same time they capture the language system’s essence. The presence and participation of ethical features are defined on every level.

Now let us refer to the correlation carrier, i.e. a unity, where the mutual compliance of lingvopragmatic and ethics is accumulated.

The analyzed context reveals the correlation of directive and representative (in J. Searle’s terminology; but in  J. Ostin’s one it is called "expositive"). Here we can observe the directive indirect pragmatic setting: how to win the attention of the audience to "children's" Oxford project and persuade them to participate in it. The essence of direct SA is the representation, i.e. the message as it is. This combination requires a special correlation of direct and indirect SA properties.

Such requirement is met by the arranged repetition of three units, in whose semantics the sema of presentation / representations dominates (in bold). See:

Childhood Education Mar 13 - Mar 16, 2016 CALL FOR PAPERS
Submission / Abstracts due by February 26, 2016

The Round Table will hold our 25th Annual International Conference on Childhood Education during the dates of March 13 – March 16, 2016 at Harris Manchester College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. Harris Manchester College is one of the thirty-eight colleges that form the University of Oxford and was founded in 1786.

You are invited and encouraged to make a presentation and to provide a paper on a relevant aspect of the topic, however, your participation as a member of the Round Table is not contingent thereon. Those not presenting papers will be placed on a discussion panel. Papers presented at the Round Table may be subsequently submitted for publication in the Forum, a journal of the Round Table».

Such interaction ethics defines its pragmatic naturalness. The directivity, at the triple repetition of the representing unit, is not importunate. It occurs being prepared due to the correlation carriers. In this way, the favourable condition of interaction of the direct and indirect nature of SA reveals. When we have a strict direct presentation, the motivation seems to be natural and effective, being systemically caused by that variety SA specifics which integrally includes "softer" pragmatics, as well as the indirect nature of directivity.

When developed, this contextual organic is confirmed and cultivates. It is strengthened systemically, for instance, by signs both of directive and indirect expressive. Directivity is indirect. But it is deeply snugged and rooted in these pragmatic subsystems. The ethically motivated unity of two methods of expression serves it: semas of activity and invitation (phatic setting). See: «You are invited and encouraged to make a presentation and to provide a paper on a relevant aspect of the topic, however, your participation as a member of the Round Table is not contingent thereon».

These mentioned above features are supported also by pragmatic importance which itself is not attached to directive (unlike activity and sociability). The importance itself can be defined in various pragmatic conditions. But in the given material in accordance with the ethical conditionality its specifics appears a kind of correlation carrier of ethics and pragmatics, being defined in the unit allocated above.

Undoubtedly, the whole system supports such correlation carrier’s function. Etymological and semasiological relations in their turn reveal themselves in the reference from significance to supermeanings of positive and grace: "Relevant see Levity" as well as in the importance as a sign mode, with the difficult unity of significance and situations: "… it is important or significant in that situation or that person …».

Obviously, such linguistic SA properties correlate indirectly and deeply with ethical settings – for example, with the intention of communicative participants noted by F. Fukuyama: they, "having ethical community as their base, open the perspective of effective joint work for themselves " [4].

The main conclusion drawn from our observations reveals the multidimensionality of connections between SA and ethical characteristics in OBS. In the modern communicative situation, it acts as an adequate space for interaction of direct and indirect pragmatic settings.

The specifics of socio-ethical discourse explains this feature. Being a special communicative field, it can create certain images inherent to social processes and institutes, using relevant texts. All this proves our idea of heterogeneity of socio-ethical discourse, lingvopragmatic richness of communicators’ relationships, and their different character which includes inducing, ordering or describing.