Ғылыми жұмыс Алибаева Луиза Фархадқызы

Алибаева Луиза Фархадқызы

PRAGMATIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF CONVERSIONS IN MODERN ENGLISH

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………..4

1. A Pragmatic Approach in Linguistics …………………………………..6

1.1 Definition of language pragmatics ……………………………………….6

1.2 Pragmatics as a section of semiotics ……………………………………..7

1.3 The subject of pragmatics ………………………………………………...8

1.4 The essence of the pragmatic approach in linguistics …………………..13

2. Conversion as one of the methods of word formation ……………..…19

2.1 Theoretical foundations of the concept of conversion ………………….19

2.2 Conversion concept ……………………………………………………..19

2.3 Research in the field of conversion word formation ……………………21

3. Key Features of English Conversions ………………….………………26

3.1 Basic conversion models ………………………………………………..26

3.2 Converted neologisms …………………………………………………..30

3.3 Pragmatic features of the use of English conversions …………………..32

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………….35

REFERENCES …………………………………...………………………..37

INTRODUCTION

English has a rich vocabulary, which we use when we describe our feelings, objects and phenomena of the world around us, state our requirements or try to prove something. However, an important factor in speech activity is not only what we say, but also why we say it. What determines the choice of a particular lexical unit in the communication process? Pragmatics deals with the search for answers to this question.

Unlike other sections of linguistics (phonology, semantics, grammar, etc.) that consider language as a static system, pragmatics approaches the study of language from the point of view of its dynamics, i.e. practical applications in real communicative conditions. Pragmatics are faced with the task of identifying internal patterns that govern the adequate use of a particular lexical unit in each particular communicative act. The pragmatic aspect of the consideration of language material determines the relevance of the study.

Questions of verbal communication in the XVIII century. touched M.Montaigne, and later V.Humboldt. However, the foundations of pragmatics as a science were laid only in the first half. XX century C.U. Morris. Further, the problem of pragmatics was dealt with by such scientists as F. de Saussure, J.N.Leach, J.L.Austin, J.R.Searle, Yu.M.Lotman, V.V.Bogdanov, N.D.Arutyunova, Yu.D.Apresyan et al.

Modern English is characterized by wide opportunities in the field of word formation. One of the most important and most productive ways to form new words is conversion. This phenomenon is so active in modern English that it almost engages, albeit with varying frequency, the words of all parts of speech. But, despite the high productivity and activity of conversion word formation, the scope of the use of English conversions in a pragmatic aspect has been little studied. That is why the study of this phenomenon is relevant.

The conversion problem was dealt with by such scientists as G.Sweet, Sh.Bally, A.I.Smirnitsky, I.V.Arnold, T.S.Bochkareva, G.B.Antrushina, M.V.Nikitin, V.V.Eliseeva and etc.

The object of this study is conversion in its pragmatic aspect.

The subject of this work is the study of the pragmatic and semantic features of modern English conversions.

The aim of the work is to study the essence of the concepts of “pragmatics” and “conversion”, as well as their relationship.

Based on the goal, the following research tasks can be distinguished:

To study theoretical sources on the topic under study;

To analyze the key concepts of linguistic pragmatics;

Consider the main conversion models and types of word-formation bases;

Determine the patterns of using conversions in a pragmatic aspect.

The novelty of the study is determined by considering conversion from the point of view of its pragmatic orientation.

Research Methods. Achieving this goal is based on the general principles of a comprehensive analysis. The modeling method helped to identify the main conversion models. The descriptive empirical method made it possible to establish the semantic and functional characteristics of conversions. Using the method of context analysis, pragmatic patterns of using English conversions are determined.

The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that the study allowed us to identify the features of word formation in modern English, to consider the features of using English conversions in a pragmatic aspect.

The practical significance of the work lies in the fact that the main results of the study can be used in courses of lexicology of the English language, stylistics of the English language, classes in the practice of the English language, in the preparation of theses.

Structure: Qualification work consists of introduction, three sections, conclusion and list of references.

1. A Pragmatic Approach in Linguistics

1. Definition of language pragmatics

Linguistic pragmatics as a branch of linguistics appeared relatively recently, in the 60s of the XX century. Pragmatics began with two factors.

Firstly, attention was drawn to the impossibility of fully understanding the nature and essence of meaning by means of linguistic semantics, remaining within the static concept of language as a closed system and taking into account only one dimension, namely, “signs of language - the external objective world that they represent”, those. considering only the representative (ideational) function of the language. It turned out to be necessary to take into account the diverse contexts of the use of linguistic signs by subjects of communication in specific ethnosociocultural situations. The speaker was put forward in the center of attention, which establishes the triadic attitude of "the speaker - the signs of the language - the current situation."

Secondly, a huge role was played by the appeal of linguistics to attempts to describe your object in a dynamic, active aspect. The very idea of ​​this approach was formulated as early as 1830-1835. V. von Humboldt. He contrasted language as a creative, creative activity, the main one in relation to all other types of human activity, as the activity of the spirit, in which the fusion of a concept with sound, the transformation of sound into a living expression of thought, and language as a frozen product of activity.

The great scientist was worried about questions about the perception and understanding of speech, the solutions of which he supposed to find in a certain linguistic unity of the people who were communicating.

V.Humboldt noted: “A word that we can stop for the sake of simplification for now does not have something ready in itself, like substance, and cannot serve as a shell for a complete concept, it simply encourages the listener to form a concept on his own, defining only , how to do it. People understand each other not because they give the interlocutor the signs of objects, and not even because they mutually tune each other to accurately and completely reproduce an identical concept, but because they mutually affect the same link in the chain of sensory representations and ears of internal concepts, touch the same keys of the instrument of their spirit, due to which each person flashes in his mind the corresponding, but not identical symbols ”[1,p.165-166].

This approach was echoed in the works of Hyman Steinthal, Wilhelm Wundt, A.A.Potebni, I.A.Baudouin de Courtenay, G.G.Shpet, Karl Buhler, P.A.Florensky, A.F.Loseva, M.M. Bakhtin, Johann Leo Weisgerbera and others.

Long before V.Humboldt, back in the 16th century, M.Montaigne raised questions of verbal communication. “In my opinion, the tone, the pitch of the voice, always express and denote something. I must use them so that he represents me. One voice teaches, the other flatters, the third scolds, I want my voice not only to reach the listener, but that he, when necessary, hit him and pierce ... Pronounced words belong to the half-speaking, half-listening. The latter must accept them the way they are thrown, just as the receiver makes certain movements during the game of ball, depending on the movements of the thrower or on the nature of the throw. ” [2,p.357].

Thus, M.Montaigne outlines those issues that are nowadays actively developed in line with linguistic pragmatics.

The term "pragmatics" (ancient Greek. Pragmatos - action) was introduced back in the late 30s. XX century C.W.Morris as the name of one of the sections of semiotics of systems to objects, syntactics - a section on inter-sign relations, and pragmatics exploring the relationship to the signs of speakers.

In linguistic literature there are various definitions of the term "pragmatics".

C.U.Morris calls pragmatism “a discipline that studies the relationship of signs to their interpreters”.

Yu.D.Apresyan defines pragmatics as a science that considers “the speaker’s attitude fixed in a language unit (lexeme, affix, gramme, syntactic construction):

1) to reality,

2) to the content of the message,

3) to the addressee”[3,p.135].

The famous linguist V.P.Rudnev by the term “pragmatics” means “a section of semiotics that studies the relationship between signs and their users in a particular speech situation”.

In other words, pragmatics is the semantics of language in action.

2. Pragmatics as a section of semiotics

Pragmatics as an area of ​​theoretical research and solving applied problems went through a complex path in its formation and development, relying on the achievements of many areas of knowledge (philosophy, logic, linguistics, semiotics, rhetoric, communication theory, etc.).

With its roots, it goes into semiotics in the version that was created back in the 60s. XVIII century by the American scientist C.S. Piers and developed by C.U. Morris.

Classics of semiotics today called C.S.Pierce, C.U.Morris, F. de Saussure, Louis Elmslev, R.O.Jacobson, as well as Jacob von Jukskull, Yu.M.Lotman et al. Linguists.

In the development of domestic semiotics at the initial stage, Yu.N.Tynyanov, B.M.Eichenbaum, V.B.Shklovsky, members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle R.O.Jacobson, G.O.Vinokur, A.A.Reformed and others, who worked in Geneva S.O.Kartsevsky, psychologists L.S.Vygotsky, A.R.Luria et al., Art theorist S.M.Eisenstein, G.G.Shpet, A.F.Losev et al.

In the 1960s the Moscow semiotic school was formed (V.N. Toporov, V.V.Ivanov, A.A.Zaliznyak, I.I.Revzin, T.N.Moloshnaya, T.M.Nikolaeva, T.V.Tsivyan, Z.M.Volotskaya and others). The dissemination of semiotic ideas contributed to the publication of Yu.S.Stepanova.

By the mid-1960s there was an ideological rapprochement between the Moscow school and Tartu (Yu.M. Lotman). On this basis, the Moscow-Tartu School of Semiotics was formed (Within the framework of this school, the structural method of analyzing languages ​​and cultural texts was applied, therefore it is customary to attribute it to structuralism).

But even beyond its borders, a rather large number of philosophers, logicians, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, linguists, literary critics, etc., are involved in the problems of the sign, including its pragmatic functions, although about pragmatics as an independent field of study, especially linguistic pragmatics, there was no speech until the last decades of the 20th century.

Today, semiotics firmly occupies a place among the fundamental sciences. The semiotics of literature, the semiotics of art, the semiotics of architecture, etc. are successfully developing.

Among the sections of semiotics, the most ready to perform the latest cognitive tasks and the various demands of social practice was pragmatics, which got a fairly complete look in the second half of the 20th century. in the writings of the aforementioned representatives of the philosophy of language and linguistics.

The subject orientation of pragmatics goes far beyond the boundaries of semiotics proper, which found expression in the formation of various schools and trends.

3. The subject of pragmatics

The definition of the subject of linguistic pragmatics presents many difficulties. Often it is defined briefly as a discipline striving to describe a language not in its internal structure, but in its use by a person.

In this, it differs from the linguistic disciplines of the traditional set, which study the language rather as a static system. As for the linguistic pragmatics that supplemented this set, it includes the language not just in speech, speech activity for the production of statements, but in targeted objective-practical and cognitive-theoretical socially significant activity of a person as a subject of communication.

Thus, pragmatics rediscover for linguistics the basic principles of the general theory of activity and the principles of the theory of communication (communication). She focuses on how, in the words of Emil Benvenist, “assignment” of a language by a person in specific communicative acts.

The approval of the ideas and principles of general and linguistic pragmatics was the result of a long process of comprehension of a large number of concepts that specify various aspects of the category of activity. The circle of these concepts includes such as an action, a subject of action, a goal, a result, means and methods of achieving a goal, conditions, etc.

The subject of pragmatics: J.N. Lich

J.N. The lich also incorporates pragmatics into linguistics. She, in his opinion, is studying how statements get meaning in situations. He recognizes the most powerful impact on the formation of a pragmatic approach as interpreting meanings in terms of illocutionary power by J.L. Austin and J.R. Searle and in terms of conversational implicativity by G.P. Grice.

The object of pragmatic research, believes J. Lich, "should be the study of the significance in its relation to the speech situation and the general conditions for the communicative use of the language ... In this, pragmatics are different from semantics" [4,p.13]. J. Leach is very categorical in relation to semantics, denying her belonging to the sphere of language. “Language consists of grammar and pragmatics. Grammar is an abstract formal system designed to produce and interpret statements. General pragmatics is a set of strategic principles designed for successful communication through grammar. Grammar is functionally adapted to the extent necessary to facilitate the operation of pragmatic principles ”[5,p.76].

Language as a communicative system includes language as a formal system (grammar in the broadest sense of the word) and complementary (pragmatics in relation to it). Unlike grammar, pragmatics is focused and evaluative. At the same time, J. Lich believes that rapprochement between pragmatics and rhetoric is legitimate and necessary.

Lich builds his “formal-functional paradigm” in the form of a set of postulates fixing the differences between the formal and functional components.

J. Leach notes the following contrasts:

Table 1.1.

Differences between formal and functional language systems

№	Formal system (grammar) - Формальная система (грамматика)	Functional system (pragmatics) – Функциональная система (прагматика)
11	Semantics is governed by rules (= grammatical). - Семантика управляется правилами (= грамматична).	General pragmatics is controlled by principles (= rhetorical). - Общая прагматика находится под контролем принципов (= риторична).
770 ₸ - Сатып алу Материал ұнаса әріптестеріңізбен бөлісіңіз Ватсапта бөлісу Телеграммда бөлісу Фейсбукта бөлісу Сілтемені көшіру Ашық сабақ, ҚМЖ, көрнекілік, презентация жариялап табыс табыңыз! Материалдарыңызды сатып, ақша табыңыз. (kaspi Gold, Halyk bank) Соңғы бір жылда: 45 000 000 ₸ Авторлар тапқан ақша Толығырақ Ресми байқаулар тізімі Республикалық байқауларға қатысып жарамды дипломдар алып санатыңызды көтеріңіз! Тізімді көру Материал іздеу Сіз үшін 400 000 ұстаздардың еңбегі мен тәжірибесін біріктіріп, ең үлкен материалдар базасын жасадық. Төменде пәніңізді белгілеп, керек материалды алып сабағыңызға қолдана аласыз Барлығы 663 959 материал жиналған Пән Жүктелуде... Бағыт Жүктелуде... Сынып Жүктелуде... Іздеу Осы аптаның ең үздік материалдары Педагогтардың біліктілігін арттыру курстары Аттестацияда (ПББ) 100% келетін тақырыптармен дайындаймыз Аттестацияда (ПББ) келетін тақырыптар бойынша жасалған тесттермен дайындалып, бізбен бірге тестілеуден оңай өтесіз Өткен жылы бізбен дайындалған ұстаздар 50/50 жинап рекорд жасады Толығырақ