| dc.description.abstract | Analyses presented in the paper reveals some regularities observed in the manner of verbalization of prohibition
by the youth. The analyses also enable to estimate the quality of the sixth form students’ pragmatic competence
including: 1) comparatively high grade of competence in the sphere of informing about the receiver and the sender
of prohibition who usually are people making pupils/children behave in a definite way, i.e. teachers, parents,
elder sisters and brothers; 2) systemically competent and essentially correct impacting knowledge about
situations of occurring prohibition by means of showing spheres of human activity that language taboo refers to
(prohibited topics); 3) clearly appearing two radical attitudes: accepting and rejecting prohibition, which may
reflect expression of hesitation or ambivalent attitudes; 4) prohibition defined by most pupils by means of
synonyms that effectively widen the scope of the defined notion; 5) producing by pupils utterances that indeed
realize inducing function but have not typical features of the genre of prohibition, i.e. a) directives other
than prohibition; b) non-directive genres; c) utterances the impressive function of which is not predominant.
However, even if in the surface structure there is a verb other than to forbid, some utterances have
pragmatically illocutionary force of prohibition in some situations. Just as it is difficult to refer a speech
act to only one function, it similarly difficult to tell about a clear strictly definite speech act in everyday
communication. A definite speech act must be define up by perception of all joined together communicative
elements of an utterance, especially by interpretatively rich intonation. | en_EN |
