Pasternak, T., & Teteruk, S.
(2022).
The issue of key terms of lingvopragmatics.
International Journal of Philology,
13(3),
5-13.
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog13(3).2022.001
The article has determined the term “pragmatics” as a subfield of linguistics, which investigates: linguistic forms and ways via which speakers realize their goals and tasks; communicative actions carried out while speaking; as well as the conditions under which communication takes place. The purpose of the research was to present the existing views on the problem of pragmatics in modern linguistic science, and analyse the main categories of linguistics for the study of communicative behavior of the speakers. The current interest of this issue arises from the lack of comprehensive coverage and generalization of key categories of pragmalinguistics.
We have analysed the main categories of linguopragmatics such as pragmatic context, deixis, reference, inference, implicature, presupposition as well as the types of speech acts in the context of pragmalinguistic analysis.
The key conclusion of the research is that the linguistic pragmatics contributes to the interpretation processes not only of what the speakers speak directly, but also of what they “mean” and how successful the communication is. Lingvopragmatics considers all types of contextual meaning of words, takes into account the context of communication, reference identifiers, inferred meanings based on hints, background knowledge, deictic expressions, implicatures and presuppositions of speakers and hearers. The analysis of speech acts by the type of illocution and perlocution helps to interpret communicative goals and intentions of the speaker, as well as to predict the impact of utterances on the listener
pragmatics; linguopragmatics; pragmatic context; deixis; reference; inference; implicature; presupposition; communicative goals; contextual meaning; speech acts
[1] Ariel, M. (2010). Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2] Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[3] Batsevych, F.S. (2011). Introduction to linguistic pragmatics. Kyiv: Academia.
[4] Grice, G.P. (1985). Logic and speech communication. New in foreign linguistics. Progress, 16, 217-237.
[5] Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377-388.
[6] Hongwei, J. (2019). Foundations of the theory of signs (1938): A critique. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 15(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1515/css-2019-0001.
[7] Jenny, T. (2013). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Routledge.
[8] Kravchenko, N., & Pasternak, T. (2020). Institutional eco-pragmatics vs. anthropo-pragmatics: Problems, challenges, research perspectives. Cogito, 12(2), 24-39.
[9] Kravchenko, N.K. (2017). Indirect speech acts' via conversational implicatures and pragmatic presuppositions. Cognition, Communication, Discourse. Series “Philology”, 14, 54-66. doi: 10.26565/2218-2926-2017-14-05.
[10] Leech, G.H. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
[11] Makarov, M.L. (2003). Fundamentals of the theory of discourse. Moscow: Gnosis.
[12] Morris, C.W., Neurath, O., & Carnap, R. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In International encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 77-138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1080/00048405785200061.
[13] Robinson, D. (2006). Introducing performative pragmatics. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315019017.
[14] Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[15] Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy (pp. 468-501). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199234769.003.0018.
[16] Watch President Joe Biden’s full inauguration speech. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGukNIEIhTU.
[17] Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.