120 ISSN 2409-1154 Науковий всник Мжнародного гумантарного унверситету. Сер.: Флолог. 2022  53 том 1 UDC 811.111’42 DOI https://doi.org/10.32841/2409-1154.2022.53-1.27 Mintsys E. Ye., Senior Lecturer at English Philology Department Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University Kulchytska O. O., PhD, Associate Professor at English Philology Department Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University DIMINUTIVES IN REPRESENTATIVE SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH PROSE LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADOLESCENTS Summary. The current study examines the function of diminutives in the direct speech of characters in English prose literature for children and young adolescents, specifcally in representative speech acts. Speakers’ utterances were analyzed with regard to the meanings of diminutives and a speaker’s intention in a given speech situation. The analysis involved looking into the types of diminutive forms (synthetic, analytical, inherent diminutives), denotation of diminutives, illocutionary force of utterances that contain diminutives, connotations of diminutives in the context of speech situations, and speakers’ attitudes. It has been found that analytical diminutive forms are more recurrent than synthetic ones, and inherent diminutives are very rare. There have been found two cases of combining synthetic and analytical forms, and analytical and inherent forms. Predictably, the prevailing semantic denotation of diminutives is that of smallness; the semantic feature of unimportance is less recurrent ([small] and [non-important] in Wolfgang U. Dressler and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi’s [1] terminology). A rare but existing denotation is familiar relationships, but it takes a specifc speech situation for a diminutive to reveal it. In the corpus of this study, the illocutionary force of representative speech acts is asserting, claiming, presenting an opinion, persuading, explaining, denying. The use of diminutives in the speech of the characters is aimed to give a reader a better idea about their social roles, intentions, and attitudes. In the majority of cases, diminutives boost the illocutionary force of an utterance. Affectionate or derogatory meanings of the same diminutives, their connotations depend on the speech situation; a diminutive may retain or change its presupposed attitudinal meaning depending on the speech situation, social roles of the speakers, and their intentions. Key words: diminutive, representative speech act, denotation, connotation, attitude, illocutionary force. 1. Introduction Communication among interlocutors occurs in a certain dynamic communicative environment, in which speaking activity has different purposes. A communicative situation defnes (a) the ways in which interlocutors realize their communicative intentions and (b) the language means they employ for implementing them. In the present study we regard a communicative situation in which a speaker uses diminutives as a complex of external conditions of communication and internal states of interlocutors that are refected in their language [2, p. 56]. Intensive studies of diminutives were carried out by Wolfgang U. Dressler and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi [3], Daniel Jurafsky [4], Dorota Lockyer [5], Klaus P. Schneider [6; 7], Shushan Khachikyan [8], Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guerois and Lutz Marten [9], Yakiv Bystrov, Ella Mintsys and Yuliya Mintsys [10], and others. K. P. Schneider [11, p. 4] states that “Traditionally, the term ‘diminutive’ has been used to refer to words which denote smallness and possibly expressing an attitude. The expressed attitude can be either positive or negative, i.e. either affectionate or derogatory, depending on the specifc interplay of linguistic and situational factors in a given context”. He distinguishes between “three types of diminutive forms: 1) synthetic diminutives formed by morphological processes, 2) analytical diminutives formed by syntactic processes, and 3) inherent diminutives, which are semantically, but not formally related to other items in the lexical system of a given language” [12, p. 293]. According to Paulina Biały [13, p. 39], “Claiming that the same form of a given diminutive can express a range of different, and even contradictory, meanings, following Haas (1972: 148), it could be stated that the meaning of diminutives ranges from endearment and tenderness through mild belittlement and deprecation to open derogation and insult”; she also maintains that “Synthetically formed diminutives occur less often than the ones obtained analytically”. According to anthropocentric approach in modern communicative linguistics and linguistic pragmatics, a speaker/ addresser occupies a core position in the process of communication (G. R. Hovhannisyan [14], О. М. Leontiev [15], I. P. Susov [16], T. A. Yeshchenko [17]). In view of this approach, a number of scholars study diminutivity with reference to the dynamics of interaction between communicators (O. Akay et al. [18], F. S. Batsevych [19], O. I. Goikhman [20], М. Parzuchowski et al. [21]). The use of diminutives in a fctional conversation is aimed to give a reader an idea about social roles, intentions and attitudes of the characters, and this is where we enter the domain of pragmatics. Since we discuss the use of diminutives in representative speech acts, a reference should be made to John R. Searle’s typology of speech acts [22], which singles out fve basic types of speech acts: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, declarations. According to J. R. Searle, “The point or purpose of the members of the representative class is to commit the speaker (in varying degrees) to something’s being the case, to the truth of the expressed