CC BY
7
DOI 10.46566/2541-9285_2023_74_14
Khursanov N.I., doctor of philosophy (PhD) in philological sciences
senior teacher Department of English Philology Alisher Navo'i Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature
ORCID: 0000-0001-5714-2745
SOME VIEWS ON THE LINGUISTIC-PRAGMATIC STUDY OF
DRAMATIC TEXTS
Abstract. The ideas of pragmatics are also extremely relevant today as they are used in the development of heuristic (directive) programming, machine translation, information retrieval systems, etc. This article discusses some views on the linguistic-pragmatic study of dramatic texts.
Keywords: machine translation, pragmatics, dramatic text, pragmalinguistics, syntactic structures.
INTRODUCTION
In linguistics, linguistic analysis is mainly carried out in relation to text, especially literary texts. Despite the fact that many scholars have their own approaches to text analysis, there are general rules of literary text analysis. When talking about the text and its analysis, it should be noted that the issue of artistic analysis has been thoroughly studied in world linguistics.
Professor Sh. Safarov in his work "Pragmalinguistics" says, "There is no need to emphasize the bordering of such fields of linguistics as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and cognitive linguistics with pragmatics", and "...pragmalinguists and cognitologists are equally interested in the activity of linguistic thinking, the linguistic development that occurs on the basis of this activity" - they are concerned with the problems of occurrence of logical phenomena - presupposition, implicature, illocutionary purpose, etc. in the communication text [1, p. 258]. We know that phenomena such as pauses, silence, and hesitancy occurring in the activity of speech creation are phenomena of the inner cognitive process, but we should not forget that they actually serve to express the communicative purpose. Most importantly, the main goal of speech communication cooperation is information exchange, and in order to achieve this goal, interlocutors should understand each other.
In fact, whether it is through a dramatic work or through other artistic and scientific works, those who participate in the dialogue should be able to understand each other well. Linguistic possibilities serve this.
The connection of pragmalinguistics with syntax is particularly evident in its field of grouping and classification of speech acts. Determining the level of expression of the illocutionary purpose of groups of traditional communicative
types of sentences - declarative, command, and exclamatory sentences is necessary to know the pragmatic possibilities of syntactic structures. In addition, the study of the relationship between the structure of the sentence and the direct speech act makes it possible to determine the mechanisms of the translation of the asymmetry of meaning and form in the language system at the speech level and transformation into pragmatic asymmetry.
In general, the question of the relationship between the content and the linguistic form of the communication text undoubtedly determines the current topics of pragmalinguistic research. The connection of pragmatics with research in the direction of substantial - formal linguistics, firstly, allows clarifying the essence of linguistic units in more detail, and secondly, gives "soul", movement to formal linguistics [1, p. 257].
Linguistic research is developing more and more, and new fields of linguistics are emerging. Today, the fields of cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and pragmatic linguistics are rapidly developing in the world and Uzbek linguistics. At this point, it should be noted that some researches on pragmatics and sociopragmatics are actively studied on a global scale, and it is one of the areas that is relatively little paid attention to in Uzbek linguistics. Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies the use of language signs in speech; in other words, it is a branch of science that studies the attitude of the subjects who use it to the same system of signs by mastering a certain system of signs.
THE MAIN FINDINGS AND RESULTS
In the early publications, a one-sided approach to defining the object of pragmalinguistics prevailed, in which the influence of language units was in the foreground. G. Solganik notes that the choice of linguistic means is a pragmatic phenomenon. Also, V.L. Naer explains the pragmatic nature of the speech structure as "the speaker's desire to have a conscious, purposeful effect" [3, p. 112].
"Мировая наука" №5(74) 2023
science-j.com
The following issues are studied in connection with the subject of speech
' * overt and hidden purposes of the statement (conveying any information or opinion, question, command, request, advice, promise, apology, congratulations, complaint, etc.);
speech tactics and types of speech etiquette;
conversation, speaking rules; speaker's purpose;
general knowledge of the addressee by the speaker;
assessment of worldview, interests and other qualities; the attitude of the speaker to the message he is expressing.
Figure 1. Pragmatic nature of the speech structure (Naer)
In pragmatics, many issues are studied in connection with such factors as the addressee of the speech, the relationship of the interlocutors, and the specific communication situation. The ideas of pragmatics are also extremely relevant today as they are used in the development of heuristic (directive) programming, machine translation, information-search systems, etc.
Dramatic speech is a complex communicative phenomenon, which includes not only the text presented in the speech of the characters in the drama, but also various paralinguistic factors necessary for understanding the text and embedded in the subdiscourse of the author's thoughts [7, pp. 33-41].
According to Sh. Safarov, pragmatics was created and developed within the framework of semiotics, which was considered by the American scientist Charles Pierce as a science that unites all fields of knowledge [1. p. 31]. Ch. Morris was one of the first to consider pragmatics as a separate field of semiotics. This scientist, who created the classification of linguistic signs, proposed to divide semiotics into three independent parts, that is, semantics, which studies the relationship of linguistic signs to the object, syntax, which describes the relationship of signs with each other, and pragmatics, which studies the relationship of signs to the people who use them [2, pp. 3-47]. It should be noted that semantics and syntax developed rapidly from these areas in the following years, but attention to pragmatics was slower. Only by the last quarter of the last century, pragmatics began to take shape as an independent branch of linguistics.
syntactic structures on the learner by means of language units are presented in the researches of T.A.Dijk [8, p. 29]. According to his interpretation, the main principle of pragmatic theory is related to the influence of the speaker on the mental state of the listener. But the scientist was against the narrow interpretation
of pragmatics. He noted that "pragmatics is a set of situational use of language; pragmalinguistics is the formation of a system of rules that allows the language owner to associate a series of speech structures with a certain context". Van Dijk also explains that pragmatics should be distinguished from sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics [8, p. 29]. In addition, in descriptive pragmatics, practical rules of language use are formed, while in theoretical, "abstract" pragmatics, general categories are distinguished based on observations and their interrelationship is studied.
The additional meaning of the word, which is not related to the thing-event being named, belongs to pragmatics. In the case of speech acts, as in text linguistics, it is not easy to distinguish which part of the content of the text and the content of the given information is permanent or formed depending on the author's purpose. However, the realization of the author's goal in the speech structure does not happen without the participation of semantics. For this reason, the distinction between semantics and pragmatics in the contrast of "objective existence-introduction by the author" becomes complicated. As a result, the conclusions of those interested in this issue will be different. Some seek to demarcate semantics and pragmatics with respect to the permanence or contingency of the use of discourse formulas. This leads to the division of speech acts into certain types. It is also emphasized that pragmatics should be understood in a broad sense, that it covers the issues studied in the fields of semantics and syntax of linguistics and serves as a unique generalizing direction, and in this regard, pragmatic theory takes into account that the speaker and the listener perceive the proposition of a sentence or text in the same way [1, p. 39].
Views, analyzes and interpretations of the concept of pragmatics in Uzbek linguistics deserve attention. In fact, one of the important functions of language in society is to play the role of a communication tool. Pragmatic knowledge, in turn, is the result of experience accumulated during human activity; this knowledge is linguistically realized in the process of information exchange and thus stored in the mind. But during each individual speech communication, a linguistic sign can express a new meaning. Pragmatics issues are currently being discussed in other fields as well.
Representatives of the field of linguistic sociopsychology prefer to describe pragmatics in two directions, that is, in the text-author and text-addressee relations. As a result, the pragmatics of information transmitters and information receivers are different. The first of them has a "static" character, because the text has only one interpretation, that is, the author's interpretation, and the addressee's interpretation, on the contrary, is dynamic, because "depending on the number of recipients of the text, interpretations are expected to be discontinuous". According to the authors, this issue is not important at the level of the text, but their activation is interrelated.
Linguist Eman Adil Jaafar in his "article Language Analysis of Drama Texts" points out those readers should first know what they mean by drama [4].
Short argues that drama is a form of everyday communication that is simple but has some minor artistic resemblance [5]. Therefore, he mentions that drama is characterized by "interaction between the addressee and the addressee". As Short's ideas draw attention to, the discourse structure of drama is seen when two levels of discourse are displayed, the author-spectator/reader level and the addressee-addressee level. We can see this in the diagram below:
Figure 2. Discourse structure of drama (Short)
Short also mentions that there are more than two levels of drama mentioned
above.
The distribution of pragmatics in terms of transmission and reception allows research from different directions to be connected around a common field. From the definition given by Ch. Morris, it becomes clear that pragmatics is not far from sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Because the study of linguistic mechanisms of human influence is common to all these directions. They all study different aspects of a single pragmatic approach. Knowing the pragmatic possibilities of the text, in turn, creates pragmatics in content, that is, the pragmatics of information or message. In this direction, firstly, the object of research is the text, and the meaning characteristics created by the use of language units in the text are analyzed. Of course, these textual pragmatic features and individual lexical units should not lead to the same interpretation of pragmatic possibilities. But in both cases, the methods of analysis can be common.
Notes related to the direct expression of information available in the field through linguistic signs, the explicit expression of an idea, the meaning of an idea that is not visually expressed through lexical and grammatical signs, but implies an independent perception by the listener or reader is implicitly expressed by most experts.
Accordingly, pragmatic analysis also recognizes the importance of finding general mechanisms of nonverbal (implicit, explicit, internal) formation of thoughts and determining the most important linguistic and extralinguistic factors in the formation of such thoughts [6, p. 26].
In studies of pragmatics, the main unit of analysis is a fully formed text or other types of speech, discursive structures. After all, the pragmatic possibilities of linguistic units are manifested only in their activation in text and discourse conditions. Any analysis of meaning out of context is incomplete and makes it difficult to determine the essence of a linguistic unit.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to the influence of language units, researchers are used to using the term "pragmatics" and no one thinks to comment on this concept, which is used in such combinations as "pragmatic meaning", "pragmatic information", and "pragmatic task". The concept of pragmatics is usually viewed in relation to the possibility of influence, understood through the content that occurs in communicative situations. Accordingly, we prefer to interpret pragmatics as the quality of language and its individual units, speech structures, influencing the addressee.
References:
1. Safarov Sh. (2006) Cognitive linguistics. - Jizzakh. Sangzor. - p. 258.
2. Arutyunova N.D., Paducheva E.V. (1985) Origins, problems and categories of pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics. 16. Linguistic pragmatics. - Moscow. Progress. - pp. 3-47.
3. Naer V.L. (2008) Stylistics and terms theory of verbal communication: (stylistic aspects of verbal communication). - Moscow. MPGU. - p. 112.
4. Eman A.J. (2006) Examining the Language of Drama Texts with a Reference to Two Plays: A Stylistic Study. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies. ISSN 2356-5926. Vol. 1. Issue 3.
5. Short, Mick. (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.
6. Khursanov NI. (2022) The Ratio of Verbal and Non-verbal Components in Dramatic Discourse (on the Example of Works in Uzbek and English). Abstract of Dissertation for PhD. Andijan State University. Andijan. - p. 26.
7. Khursnaov N.I. (2023) Sociolinguistic Features of Dramatic Discourse. International Journal of Word Art. Vol 6. Issue 1. - pp. 33-41. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7680567
8. Davletnazarova, L. (2022). SOME REVIEWS ON MATHEMATIC LINGUISTICS. COMPUTER LINGUISTICS: PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS, PROSPECTS, 7(1).
9. Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Strategic discourse comprehension. Linguistic dynamics, 29.
