Melnyk I. Provocative speech: communicative pragmatic aspect (based on modern English).

The thesis deals with the provocative speech which is considered as an intellectual and speech action of a speaker, a speech influence strategy and may be realized in different types of discourse by using verbal and non-verbal means. It focuses on the study of communicative and pragmatic peculiarities of the provocative speech as a special type of the interpersonal communication. Provocation is defined here as a provocateur's action who intends to obtain (provoke) necessary verbal reaction from the recipient. The provocateur is considered as an active speaker whose main task is to plan the communicative process, choose appropriate strategies and tactics as well as verbal and nonverbal markers of their realization in order to implement effective communication. The type of discourse affects the verbal behavior of the provocateur. This paper has considered provocative speech within institutional and non-institutional types of discourse. Institutional discourse refers to verbal exchanges between two or more speakers where at least one of them is a representative of an institution. Therefore, institutional discourse implies the hierarchy of social roles and the asymmetry of interpersonal relationships. On the contrary, non-institutional discourse refers here to everyday communication between familiar speakers i.e. friends, acquaintances, neighbors etc. This level of familiarity let the provocateur find subtle ways of influence in order to obtain necessary information. These discourse peculiarities predetermine tactical and strategic behavior of provocateur in the communicative situations of provocative speech. The communicative situations within institutional and non-institutional types of discourse can be divided into conflict, cooperative and conflict-cooperative. Conflict situations involve communicative disharmony, pressure on the recipient, provocateur's dominance, violating of cooperative principle and maxims of communication as well as politeness principles, use of non-cooperative strategies i.e. manipulative strategy, verbal pressure strategy, bluffing strategy, threatening strategy, blackmailing strategy and exposing strategy. The quantitative analysis shows that conflict communicative situations dominate in institutional type of discourse (31%) in comparison with non-institutional discourse (10%). Cooperative situations can be regarded as those where communicative balance is maintained, cooperative and politeness principles are followed, cooperative strategies are used i.e. reasoning strategy, frank conversation strategy, hint strategy, toadying strategy, flattering strategy etc. Cooperative communicative situations prevail in non-institutional discourse (26%) vs. institutional discourse (19%). Conflict-cooperative situations are based on principle of regulation and optimization and approximately equally realized in institutional discourse (8%) and non-institutional discourse (6%).