Used three principal databases

The novelty of our research is to study a specific type of complex word- formation, namely hyphenating, and its relation to the morphology-syntax interface, with the ultimate aim of gaining a better understanding of the phenomenon. Different aspects of hyphenating are explored in this work, of which the main questions addressed in each chapter.
The structure of the work consists of an introduction, three chapters and conclusion at the end of each chapter, bibliography and appendix. Introduction speaks about the brief plot of the dissertation and the structure of the work (actuality, aim, tasks, novelty and so on.) the main part of the work includes three chapters in itself. The first chapter presents the role of hyphenation in English compound words, background researches of hyphenations, methods of researching hyphenated words, the meanings of compound words when hyphenated. The
second chapter starts by phonetic and morphological Usage of hyphenated words in English – ways of separating and joining usage. The third chapter comprises the semantic analysis of hyphenated words in English and results in nominal hyphenations, Verbal hyphenations and adjectival hyphenations.
Till now, accompanied by scientific teacher and I myself have written more than fifteen scientific articles but more than five of them have been published in the Republic scientific journals and also the results of them have been given to the publication

Chapter I. Speech Act Theory: Request as a Speech Act:

1.1 Request as a Speech Act:

Directing the scientific endeavours towards the functional aspect of the language in human communication, in 1962-1965, a theory was initially advocated by Austin, the father of pragmatics, which later was developed by his disciple Searle, making interesting development in this field in 1969-1975. In his theory, Austin (1962) considers speakers as tending to perform certain functions with the language utterance rather than merely using language to say things; accordingly, an utterance can be regarded as a speech act. He argues the minimal unit of human communication, i.e. the speech act, embodies the performance of certain kind of acts rather than a linguistic expression. He proposes a three-fold system to describe a speech act in which he breaks it down to three components, namely: the locution, the illocution and the perlocution. According to his proposed system, the locution refers to the actual words the speaker uses, whereas the illocution expresses the intention, or force behind the utterance such as giving an order, making a request or a promise, apologising, complaining, etc. The last aspect, the perlocution, is the sequel, the interlocutors’ reaction whether verbally or nonverbally.
According to Austin, words do more than make a statement about facts, “to say” something corresponds with, “to do” something (Austin, 1962: 12).
With the notion of achieving intended communicative goals at the heart of the definition of Speech Act Theory, Huang (2010: 682), concurs with Austin, claiming that people use the language not only to express a thought, but also to accomplish their communicative goals. Olshtain and Cohen, A. (1991: 155) further note that every language develops “a set of patterned, routinized utterances that speakers use regularly to perform a variety of functions by which the speaker carries out an act with respect to the hearer (cited in Mahani, 2012: 31). Lenchuk and Ahmed (2013) further state that the interpretation of a speech act depends on the context, including the immediate physical world of the interlocutors, as well as the social, cultural, and historical knowledge they possess. Owing to this, awareness and appreciation of the NSs’ pragmatic behaviour, their system of cultural beliefs, values, and norms is at the heart of L2 language learning.
Subsequent to Austin’s previously mentioned classification system of speech act, Searle (1976:10) contributes widely to the development of the same theory with more refinement and insights into categorising speech acts according to the viewpoint of intentionality. He proposes a five-fold division based on the functions assigned to them, namely, representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. He explains (1976:10) representatives refer to stating what the speakers believe to be true, for instance: to assert, to boast or to deduce. He adds directives refer to speakers’ attempts to get the hearers to do something for the speakers’ benefit, for instance: to request, to order, or to beg. Further, he defines commissives as the speakers committing themselves to some future course of action or intends, for instance: to promise, to pledge, or to threaten. He illustrates expressives as the speakers’ expressing their own psychological statements of pleasure or dislike, sorrow, for instance: to thank or to apologise. Finally, declarations are defined as the speakers’ bringing about correspondence between propositional content and the reality, declaring it makes it happen, for example: to baptise or to appoint.

With further refinement, Searle (1979) and Leech (1983) classify speech acts according to the extent of directness, in which direct speech acts derive their illocutionary force from the surface meaning of the utterance, whereas indirect speech acts derive their illocutionary force via inferring the speaker’s true intention in the light of certain conventional ways of formulating them. Direct speech acts tend to exploit a conventional relationship between utterances and functions, whereas indirect speech acts make use of the ambiguity of implicit meaning and connotations. According to Searle, (1975: 60-61) an indirect speech act:

…communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and non-linguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer.

Studying requests makes directives as a general category of speech acts fall within the scope of interest of this study. Besides, it is unequivocal that the study of requests calls attention to the issue of politeness, where the speaker is deemed imposing his/her will on the hearer, and thus requests are considered Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) according to Brown and Levinson (1987: 65). Directives tend to involve different levels of opacity to communicate politeness and to maintain the hearer’s face.