On the formal-semiotic aspect of utterance pragmatics in English and German languages

Chikina Elena Evgen'evna ORCID: 0000-0003-3000-7804 PhD in Philology Associate Professor; Department of the Second Foreign Language and Methods of teaching Foreign Languages; Vladimir State University named after A.G. and N.G. Stoletov 600000, Russia, Vladimir region, Vladimir, Bolshye Remenniki str., 2A, sq. 6 despoyna@mail.ru

Chikina Anna Andreevna ORCID: 0009-0003-3022-1672 Student; Faculty of Philology; Pushkin State Institute of the Russian Language 600000, Russia, Vladimir region, Vladimir, Bolshye Remenniki str., 2A, sq. 6 chikina.anna.03@yandex.ru

Introduction.

The pragmatic aspect of utterance has been actively studied in linguistics since the development of J. The theory of speech acts will prevail, since illocutionary impact is a universal concept for the linguistic and creative activity of humans as a biological species. Traditionally, following Searle, five categories of illocutionary acts are distinguished: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives. However, firstly, there is no single typology in pragmatics; researchers operate with numerous classifications of utterance intentions, including hybrid ones, for more details see, for example, ^[1]. Secondly, the variety of such classifications in any case boils down to the analysis of the meaning of an utterance, i.e. to its subjective interpretation, and in the literature it is noted that it is impossible to unambiguously interpret the semantics of certain speech acts ^[2].

The forms of expression of certain intentions differ not only in national and linguistic originality, but also in significant variability within a single language, which generates multiple synonymous constructions or indirect ways of expression, traditionally called indirect speech acts. At the same time, as Yu.V. Perlova notes, linguistic means of expressing intentions are not always "included in the category of systemic means for conveying these meanings", but reflect "creative aspects of human thinking" ^{[3, p. 348]}.

The purpose of the study is to identify a certain universal mechanism of functioning of the pragmatics of the speech act, which results in the emergence of standard intentions.

Research methods and principles.

To solve this problem, it seems necessary to rely on semiotic methodology in a broad sense. As N. A. Booth notes, for example, works on the study of utterance pragmatics often consider the speech act "in isolation from the broad context of communication processes," where "the problems of the utterance process, in particular, such components as the sender and recipient of the message, remain outside the analysis" ^[4]. Thus, the communicative functions of grammatical constructions are analyzed based on their propositional structure ^[5], based on their paradigmatic and syntagmatic features ^[6], or based on frame semantics ^[7].

The main research methods are the method of semiotic analysis, the method of component analysis, the method of conceptual analysis, and the method of linguistic description.

Pragmatics, as is known, describes the interaction of signs with the interpreting and producing subjects of semiosis. The general and traditional formula of such interaction is implemented in models of a communicative act of the form addressee→message →addressee.

To analyze the mechanism of realization of the illocutionary force of a message, it seems necessary to compare the above scheme with G. Frege's semiotic triangle, reflecting semantic formation in the process of semiosis (see Fig. 1). After all, it is through the created sign that the addressee transmits his intentions to the addressee, realizing the illocutionary force of the created sign, which is embedded in its form.

Fig. 1

Let us make a reservation that in the framework of this study, "meaning" and "meaning" are considered as synonymous and interchangeable terms, since we are not considering the semiosis of a separate object of reality, but the emergence of a constructive sign of a sentence, which, according to I. P. Susov, "correlates with a non-linguistic real or conceivable situation as its denotation" (I. P. Susov Introduction to theoretical linguistics). For the same reason, in our scheme, instead of the term "denotation", the terms "referent" and "reference situation" are used.

The object of this research is the basic intentions formally expressed in the structure of English and German utterances.

Discussion of the research results.

So, the illocutionary force of a speech act is manifested in the speech act addressee→message→addressee, it is also one of the components of the semiotic triangle produced by the addressee. The juxtaposition of communicative and semantic models is justified and mentioned in the literature. For example, the relationship between the objects of reality and the relationship between form and meaning is noted in ^{[8, p. 430]}. E. V. Garin and I. V. Ostrovskaya at the same time describe a communicative act as something that happens "not between two people, but between two models of perception of reality" ^[9].

At the same time, it is necessary to note the structural and functional similarity of the pragmatic and semantic models of the speech act that arises on the basis of the illocutionary force. On the one hand, there is also J. Searle emphasized that the illocutionary force determines how the content of an utterance "should relate to the world," calling this phenomenon the "direction of adaptation" ^{[10, p. 173]}. On the other hand, Piantadosi points to the "vector space" of modern language models, where semantics and syntax function within a single semantic mechanism ^{[11, p. 358]}.

Thus, both pragmatic and semantic models of utterance have a pronounced vector. The message mediates the directed interaction between the addressee and the addressee, and, like the form of a linguistic sign, mediates between the referent (referential situation) and the meaning. At the same time, each time interval of a communicative act is characterized by only one direction of influence. It is noteworthy that C. T. Zolyan, reflecting on the place of the speaker and the interpreter in the aspect of formal logical sign relations, speaks of systems of recursive operations where signs alternately take on the functions of the speaker's sign and the interpreter's sign, and pragmatics is broadly understood by him as "the relationship between the sign system-object and the meta-system regulating its actualization."" ^{[12, p. 101]}.

Thus, the following hypothesis can be formulated. Illocutionary force is the interaction of two components of an utterance realized during the creation of a sign – communicative (addressee → message → addressee) and semantic (meaning → form → referent / reference situation). In this case, the corresponding elements of both models overlap each other. It should be noted at once that this overlap does not mean identity, but functional synchronization.

It is the result of such an overlap that we observe in the process of analyzing the intentions of an utterance, i.e. its illocutionary aspect. And since both types of interactions are carried out through the form of an utterance, when analyzing the pragmatics of an utterance, it is necessary to give priority to the formal side of the message.

The pragmatic conclusion, actualized in the formal side of the message, is derived "on the basis of meanings embedded in real linguistic structures, by analyzing logical concepts, semantics, and context" ^{[13, p. 71]}, while, according to E. F. Kirov, a "semiotic relationship of symbolization" arises ^[14].

Such symbolization is, first of all, a way of actualizing syntactic concepts, as defined by E. V. Tarasenko, "expressed by the structural scheme of a simple sentence." <...> information about the type of situation" ^[15]. As E. V. Tenstanenko notes, in parallel with the illocutionary act, the speaker performs a locative act "through acts of reference and predication" ^[16], and the form of the speech act is a predicative sign, "acting <...> as a communicative unit" ^{[17, p. 90]}.

It seems that in order to analyze the illocutionary forces of an utterance, it is necessary to turn to the syntactics of the predicative sign, i.e., to consider the formal differences between messages in which one or another type of illocutionary act is expressed.

Here it is necessary to postulate that with all the variety of intentions identified in the analysis of the semantics of predicative signs, their formal syntactic analysis gives only three universal intentions, returning us to the classical linguistic classification of statements by purpose. Narrative, interrogative, and motivational statements formally and typologically differ from each other, which is a linguistic universal that seems to correlate with the universal nature of the illocutionary force of the utterance.

Therefore, we must consider the features of the interaction of the communicative (pragmatic) and semantic models of utterance generation, expressed in structural and linguistic implementations of syntactic concepts of predicative signs, since, according to N. I. Zhinkin, the mechanism of interaction of narrative, interrogative and motivational statements "rests on a predicative framework" ^{[18, p. 32]}. Thus, it is possible to demonstrate cognitive-syntactic models of basic intentions in specific languages.

1. Narrative statements.

In a situation of narrative utterance, the speaker (addressee) creates a meaningful message and sends it to the addressee. Thus, the addressee's position corresponds to the signified, since it is he who forms the meaning of the sign, the shape of the sign corresponds to the physically expressed message, and the addressee correlates with the denotation, since both of these components are objects of purposeful influence (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Let's look at how such an interaction is actualized in German and English. The main way to express one of the three purposes of utterance in these languages is the word order. It seems that its features are a certain metaphorical (cognitive) model of such interaction.

In English, the predicative sign of a narrative utterance is characterized by an unchangeable S+P. At the same time, it is not affected by the difference between the forward and reverse word order, the purpose of the utterance remains unchanged.

He came to me yesterday. Yesterday he came to me.

Such a "stable" deployment of a predicative pair allows us to compare its syntactics with the process of semiosis. Initially, the speaker forms the meaning, which correlates with the initial position of the subject as the main member of the sentence, the first in the spatial unfolding of predication. Then the shape of the sign appears, i.e. the message. A predicate, as you know, is what is said about the subject. And the constant sum of S+P – the result of the syntactic sweep – is metaphorically compared with the denotation. It is the predicative pair that names the external situation in the process of semiosis of an utterance, it is also directed at the addressee, i.e. it makes it possible to perceive the meaning of the message.

In German, the situation looks somewhat different. The place of the subject relative to the predicate differs in the forward and reverse word order. However, in a narrative sentence, the predicate or its conjugated part invariably takes the second place.

Er kam gestern zu mir. Gestern kam er zu mir.

Consequently, in the German linguistic worldview, the process of semiosis is primarily associated with the generation of the sign form. As in English, it metaphorically corresponds to the predicate, which stands in the "normative" second place after the origin of the meaning. The meaning in this case is not related to the subject of the utterance, but to the first element in its discursive space. Speaking about the syntactic aspect of an utterance in German, it should be noted that it is through the first element in turn that the speaker begins to form the meaning. In this case, the whole statement indicates a reference situation (unlike in English). This is also confirmed by the fact that the so-called "framework construction" is implemented in German, when the last place in the sentence is the non-conjugated part of the predicate.

Ich habe ihn nie gesehen. Er ist aber unglaublich klug.

In other words, it is only at the end of an utterance that its form finally appears in the German narrative sentence, indicating the corresponding reference situation and influencing the addressee.

It is obvious that in both German and English, the onomasiological model of creating a name, in this case the name of an utterance, is metaphorically actualized in narrative constructions – from meaning to form.

2. Questionable statements.

From our point of view, interrogative statements represent the opposite of the narrative version of the interaction of the communicative and semanticaspects of semiosis.

The form of the utterance also corresponds to the message, being an intermediary element. However, in this case, the meaning is formed by the addressee, and the effect is directed at the addressee, who functionally corresponds to the denotation of the utterance (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

From a formal point of view, a question with a question word and a question without a question word are distinguished in German and English. Consider the question with the question word. In this case, the identical word order is observed in both languages: Interrogative pronoun + predicate + subject:

What did you do? Was hast du gemacht?

As can be seen, in the first place in the syntactic unfolding of an utterance is an element with a pronounced deictic function. Thus, the speaker, as realizing the formal side, correlates precisely with his deictic aspect, i.e. with the reference situation, and the addressee, to whom the illocutionary force of the utterance is directed, correlates with the subject completing this formula. This phenomenon, by the way, is noted by A. I. Volokitina, saying that "the peculiarity of interrogative and incentive sentences is <...> the fact that their communicative structure does not contain the usual starting point of an utterance" ^{[19, p. 84]}. H. Kalpak considers interrogative semantics in the logic of "semantic triviality", which does not depend on projections of presuppositions in the utterance, but is determined by relevant interpretations of the addressee ^[20]. The proposed model seems to provide an explanation for this fact. Since in a narrative utterance the subject metaphorically correlates with the meaning of the utterance, putting the subject in the last place in the formula of word order indicates that it is the addressee who, answering the question, will form the meaning of the interrogative utterance, and, consequently, its propositional logic.

Let's consider the question without the question word. In both languages, there is also an identical word order: P+S+minor members of the sentence (if any):

Am I right? Kommst du mit?

In this case, we observe a mirror image of the syntactic unfolding of the utterance in relation to the narrative model. The members of the predicative pair change places, which metaphorically means a change in the position of the addressee and the addressee regarding the meaning and the reference situation. These two elements of the communicative model occupy each other's "initial" positions, i.e. the positions they occupy in narrative statements.

3. Motivational statements

The interaction of the communicative and semantic aspects of semiosis in the implementation of motivational statements, obviously, cannot be isomorphic to the situations of narration and question, since, as shown above, narration and question are symmetrically opposite formal and pragmatic processes.

It seems that in order to describe the semiosis of motivational statements, we must turn to the phenomenon of performativity, which has long been known in pragmatics. In the theory of speech acts, the performativity of an utterance, as a rule, manifests itself as a result of the actualization of verbs with specific performative semantics in narrative utterances, which make it possible to implement the principle of J. R.R. Tolkien. Serle's "word as action". It should be noted that performativity studies show ambiguous results in describing performative verbs. Different authors have different lists of them, and they often increase, so that there is no complete description of all the lexical performatives of a particular language. We believe that from a formal and pragmatic point of view, the phenomenon of performativity is primarily realized in motivational statements. The basis for such a statement is that motivational statements are characterized by signs of unverifiability (i.e., the inapplicability of the concepts of truth and falsity to them) and self–reference.

The sign of autoreference is especially important in this case, since it allows us to compare the message with the referent of the semantic triangle when correlating the communicative and semantic aspects of semiosis in motivational statements. The addressee, as in the case of a narrative utterance, forms the meaning of the utterance and correlates with it, and the addressee correlates with the shape of the sign. This, at first glance, unexpected correlation becomes obvious if we take into account that it is the addressee of the motivational statement that is the tool for creating the denotation of the statement in the real world, and in the pragmatic aspect, the form is an instrument of influence (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

From the point of view of word order, in both English and German, motivation is formally expressed by the imperative of the verb, with the verb taking the first place in the utterance, while the subject is absent. It is also noteworthy here that imperative statements in both English and German are single-part sentences, generally unusual for the analyzed languages.

Come to me! Komm zu mir!

It seems that such a formal construction metaphorically expresses the semantic self-reference of an utterance, i.e. the coincidence of form and referent in Frege's formula, when a semiotic triangle ceases to be a triangle, since its vertices coincide. Since the subject is not verbalized, the predicativity of the utterance is formally expressed only in the predicate. In this case, based on the premise of the obligatory presence of a predicative connection for the formation of an utterance, it is necessary to talk about a merger in the main term, formally expressed by the predicate, of the subject and the predicate as identical semantic entities. Consequently, if in previous models the subject or the first element in the syntactic unfolding of the utterance metaphorically expressed the meaning, then when it is semantically and formally merged with the predicate, not only the referent and form merge in the imperative verb, but also the referent, form and meaning merge completely.

Thus, a kind of semantic "singularity" arises in the formally expressed motivational statements characteristic of English and German, which metaphorically expresses the intensity of the illocutionary impact.

Conclusions.

The results of this study show the possibility of identifying cognitive-syntactic models of the illocutionary aspect of an utterance. The theoretical basis of this is the understanding of illocutionary force as a result of the interaction of the communicative and semiotic components of the generated utterance, manifested in its formal and syntactic aspect. Therefore, it is advisable to talk about three basic illocutionary situations: narrative, interrogative and motivational, since they have a formal syntactic manifestation in the languages of the world.

The structural and functional coordination of the elements of communicative and semantic interactions shows the synchronization of the addressee of the utterance with the meaning of the sign in the narrative and motivational structures and with the referent of the interrogative structures. The addressee of the utterance in the narrative structure correlates with the referent of the utterance, with the meaning of the utterance in questions and with the form of the sign in motivational statements. The message as an element of communicative interaction in narrative and interrogative structures is synchronized with the form of the sign, and in motivational structures – with the referent of the utterance, since motivational statements have a performative nature.

In German and English, syntactics, which arises as a result of the action of illocutionary forces, consists in the order in which the predicative pair is deployed. Thus, the cognitive-syntactic models of narrative constructions in German and English reflect the natural onomasiological process of creating a name. In interrogative structures, mirror-spatial symmetry is realized in relation to narrative utterances when synchronizing addressee–addressee and sense–referent pairs, as well as the model of "deictic emptiness". In the syntactics of motivational statements, a model of "semiotic singularity" is revealed, reflecting the neutralization of the semiotic triangle in self-referential statements.

The application of the above principles of the analysis of interrogative, narrative and motivational constructions to the material of various languages will make it possible, as it seems, to identify the national uniqueness of cognitive-syntactic models of the illocutionary aspect of utterance for a particular linguistic and creative community.