PRAGMATIC ATTRACTION: SETTING THE PROBLEM AND INTRODUCTION THE TERM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.1.2018.135619Keywords:
pragmatic attraction, types of pragmatic attraction, structural interrelations, illocution, implicature, communicative conventionsAbstract
Introduction. The paper focuses on the defining a new linguistic term of pragmatic
attraction, starting a case-study for its grounding in the system of scientific terms and notions.
Purpose. The paper aims at defining the term “pragmatic attraction” by analogy with
already used in linguistics notions, such as paronymic attraction, semantic attraction, and
syntagmatic attraction based on its interconditionality and mutual “attraction” of different
pragmatic phenomena.
Methods. The research is based on the methods of pragmatic analysis, structural analysis
and textual analysis.
Results. The paper identified and described three main types of pragmatic attraction.
The first type is the attraction of information and pragmatic parameters connected with attaching
implicit meanings and dealing with illocutionary meanings, implicatures (both conventional
and non- conventional), and presuppositions (pragmatic, semantic, etc). The second one is
the attraction of intensional and strategic parameters, which specifies the ways to optimize
interactivity: communicative conventions, communicative roles, strategies, tactics and speech
turns. The third one, the attraction of heterogeneous parameters, which combines the conditions
and the ways to attach pragmatic information from the previous two categories. The paper analysed
the peculiarities of structural interrelations among these types of pragmatic attraction.
Conclusions. We have concluded that the outlined types of pragmatic attraction have
specific kinds of structural relations: non- hierarchical interrelation of homogeneous parameters
(first type of pragmatic attraction), hierarchical interrelation of homogeneous parameters (second
type of pragmatic attraction), and hierarchical interrelation of heterogeneous parameters (third
type of pragmatic attraction).
References
Воронюк, О. В. (1998). Паронімічна атракція в заголовку текстів англомовної масової комунікації. (Автореф. дис. канд. філол. наук). Одеса.
Дащенко, Н. Л. (1996). Паронімічна атракція в українській поезії 60 – 80-х років ХХ ст. (Автореф. дис. канд. філол. наук). Київ.
Дмитрук, О. В. (2006). Маніпулятивні стратегії в сучасній англомовній комунікації (на матеріалі друкованих та інтернет-видань 2000–2005 років). (Автореф. дис. канд. філол. наук). Київ.
Иссерс, О. С. (2002). Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. Москва: Едиториал УРСС.
Корольова, А. В. (2008). Стратегії і тактики комунікативної поведінки учасників спілкування в ситуаціях конфлікту. Studia Linguistica. Збірник наукових праць 1, 48-53.
Костина, И. А. (2017). Семантическая аттракция семем глагольных наименований физического восприятия в русском и английском языках. Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. 6 (119), 120-123.
Маковский, М. М. (1971). Теория лексической аттракции (опыт функциональной типологии лексико-семантических систем). Москва: Наука.
Пастернак, Т. А. (2011). Комунікативні стратегії і тактики дискурсу “співбесіда при прийомі на роботу”. Studia Linguistica: Збірник наукових праць. 5 (2), 363-367.
Полтавець, Ю. С. (2013). Явище атракції: вияв на різних мовних рівнях. Лінгвістичні дослідження: Зб. наук. праць ХНПУ ім. Г.С. Сковороди. 36, 210-217.
Славова, Л. Л. (2006) Комунікативні стратегії та тактики у сучасному масмедійному політичному дискурсі: зіставний аспект (на матеріалі українських та американських Інтернет-джерел). Вісник Житомирського державного університету імені Івана Франка. (27), 116-117.
Шейгал, Е. И. (2000). Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва, Волгоград: Перемена.
Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and philosophy. 22 (4), 367-421.
Bach, K. (2012). Saying, meaning, and implicating. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 23-45). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-324). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Horn, L. R. (2007). Towards a Fregean pragmatics. Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung. Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 39-69).
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. Studies in social interaction (pp. 294-338). New York: Free Press.
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures in Montague grammar. Syntax and Semantics. 11: Presupposition. 1-56.
Karttunen, L. & Zaenen, A. (2005). Veridicity. Annotating, extracting and reasoning about time and events. Available at http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/2005/314
Kravchenko, N. (2017a). Illocution of direct speech acts via conventional implicature and semantic presupposition. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. II (1), 128-168.
Kravchenko, N. (2017b). Indirect speech acts’ via conversational implicatures and pragmatic presuppositions. Cognition, communication, discourse. 14, 54-66.
Kravchenko, N., Pasternak, T. (2018). Multifacet Pragmatics of Russian Post-soviet Jokes. The languages of humor: Jokes Caricatures & Slapstick. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Kravchenko, N. & Pasternak, T. (2016). Politeness strategies via speech acts and conversational implicatures. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology. 14 (25), 105. 60-63.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. (2013). Presupposition and implicature. Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. 2. Available at http://www.semanticsarcheve.net
Rieber, S. D. (1997). Conventional implicatures as tacit performatives. Linguistics and philosophy. 20 (1), 51-72.
Sacks, H. G. at al. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. 1, 2. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society. 29 (1), 63.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Cambridge MA.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
1. Authors take full responsibility for the content of the articles as well as the fact of their publication.2. All the authors must follow the current requirements for publication of manuscripts. Plagiarism itself and its representation as the original work as well as submission to the editorial office previously published articles are unacceptable. In case of plagiarism discovery the authors of the submitted materials take all the responsibility.
3. Authors shall inform the editor of any possible conflict of interests which could be influenced by the publication of the manuscript results.
4. The editorial board has the right to refuse publication of an article in case of non-compliance with these requirements.
