Dėl termino „lingvistinis mandagumas“

Ms. Chesapeake. On the term linguistic courtesy 309 Giedrė Čepaitienė Šiaulių universitetas ON TERMINO In the works of pragmatic linguistics, the term linguistic courtesy (along with linguistic behaviour) has recently begun to be used. Perhaps the first to use this term was inga Hilbig (2009, 2010), later it was taken over by Birutė Ryvitytė (2011). i. Hilbig, reviewing the latter’s work, positively evaluates the choice of this term (Hilbig 2011). The authors refer to the English term linguistics politeness when they use the term linguistic courtesy. The aim of this publication is to clarify the semantics of the aforementioned term and its correspondence with the linguistic terminology system. A word as a term must combine its lexical and adjective meaning, only then is it appropriate, without violating the language system (see Keinys 2005: 205–208). In this case, the term linguistic courtesy violates this harmony. The semantics of the combining notation linguistic, having the suffix -inis, corresponds to what the origin of the base word, i.e. the word linguistics, indicates. However, when the authors talk about linguistic politeness, they do not mean the tendencies of politeness reflected in the works of linguists (Vladas Žulys wrote about the ethos of science in 1997), but quite other things. They are essentially concerned with the tendencies of individual use of language powers in various acts of speech. As mentioned, the authors provide the term linguistic courtesy by analogy with the English definition of the concept. However, the convenience of the term (in this case, the given term linguistic politeness can be considered a typical equivalent, the so-called lime) cannot become the main criterion for its establishment. Especially since a semantically incorrect term destroys the ever-weakening sense of language. Furthermore, it is completely unclear why a sufficiently broad term, encompassing essentially all acts of speech and having a long tradition of use, such as language etiquette, is abandoned. After all, it is precisely it that shows the relationship with both systems so important for the study of speech acts: language, its powers and ethics – the basic rules of behaviour of a nation or other community. 310 Languages and Culture | 86 LiteRatūRa Hilbig i. 2009: Lietuvių ir anglų prašymų strategijos ir mandagumas. – Lietuvių kalba (elektroninis išteklius), 3. Hilbig i. 2010: Lietuvių ir anglų lingvistinis mandagumas: prašymai, Vilnius: Vu leidykla. Hilbig i. 2011: Rec.: Ryvitytė B. Lingvistinės pragmatikos įvadas. – Lietuvių kalba (elektroninis išteklius), 5. Keinys s. 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Ryvitytė B. 2011: Lingvistinės pragmatikos įvadas, Vilnius: Vu leidykla. Žulys V. 1997: Mokslo etosas. – Kalbotyra 46 (1), 133–134. Received 20 December 2013 GieDRė Čepaitienė Šiaulių universitetas p. Višinskio g. 38, Lt-76352 Šiauliai [email protected]