CC BY
41
ЛИНГВОТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
Н. Ф. Алефиренко, ORCID Ю: 0000-0002-4083-4486
Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет, г. Белгород, Россия
Конрад Рахут,
Университет имени Адама Мицкевича, г. Познань, Польша
УДК 81'233
КОГНИТИВНАЯ ЛИНГВОПРАГМАТИКА
в языке современной науки
Специфика когнитивно-прагматической подпарадигмы лингвистики 21-го века сводится к слиянию постулатов функционально-коммуникативной лингвистики с теорией человеческой словесно-познавательной деятельности, которая на самом деле предполагает учет всех (экстралингвистических и лингвистических) компонентов генерации дискурсивного текста. Согласно его методологическим постулатам, лингвистический анализ фокусируется не только на системе языка, но и на человеческой дискурсивной деятельности. Это позволяет подойти к пониманию литературного текстового резонанса (единства коммуникативного события, его интеллектуально-эмоционального восприятия и архитектоники повествования), являющегося особой синергией, которая формирует аксосемантическое поле текста, следовательно, реализуя познавательный, прагматические и директивные функции языка.
Ключевые слова: когнитивная лингвистика, прагматическая лингвистика, когнитивно-прагматическая субпарадигма, вербально-познавательная деятельность, дискурс, дискурсивная деятельность, иллокуция, директивная функция языка.
1. Introduction
In view of the functional correlation between modern ideas of cognitive linguistics and pragmatic linguistics, the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of modern linguistics becomes more and more categorically clear. It might be either an intentional hybridization of linguistic paradigms or a natural trend. Potentially, the tendency of modern linguists to develop over-the-top theoretical "centaurs" may apply in this particular case. In order to refute such claims, it is necessary to show that cognitive linguistics and pragmatic linguistics definitely cannot be termed as two parallel lines that have no points of intersection.
We believe that the points of intersection between the two have their roots in discursive space of human existence. Hence the organic correlation of human verbal-cognitive activity and pragmatic linguistics, which,
in fact, not necessarily leads to the formation of a new paradigm of scientific research, but certainly to the emergence of an intermediate mixture of cognitive views on language - a subparadigm. The central questions that have to be answered here are whether there are any objective origins of such an integration and to which extent it can be productive for research on the creative nature of language.
There is no particular need to prove the following statement: linguistics is inherently related to communicative pragmatics and discourse theory. Actually, the components of the linguistic theory in question are all constructed on the basis of the anthropocentric energy of language. Anthropocentrism, encapsulating the totality of its postulates, translates into strong differentiation between the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language and the immanent nature of structural linguistics. Accordingly, for structural linguistics it is sufficient to purport the existence of language as an abstract web of interrelations, while for cognitive-pragmatic linguistics it is central to focus not only on language as an indistinguishable unity of form and content, but also on a higher entity - the creative unity of language, communication and humans. This trinity is the true condition that enables people to exist, think, perceive and create an axiosemantic space in their life - the epicentre of human culture and civilisation. While structural linguistics is based on the statics of words and their grammatical forms in language research, it is linguistic pragmatics, resorting to cognitive linguistics, which accounts for the image of human needs, motivations, goals, intentions and expectations, as well as their pragmatic and communicative actions and considers them as the true foundation of linguistic research. Therefore, the situations in which humans act as either the subjects of verbal interaction, or the objects of verbal-cognitive activity, or the characters of works of literature actually become the focal point.
It is not accidental that cognitive-pragmatic linguistics generally subscribes to the ideas of the processual approach to language. From the point of view of cognitive-pragmatic linguistics, language is not self-sufficient, thus examining it only "in itself and for itself' is pointless. Being the subject of research, language has to be ontologically and epistemologically integrated into human activity. Hence the understanding of language as one of the key instruments of such activity, as one of its basic verbal-cognitive variants. Consequently, the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language is composed of three fundamental layers: anthropocentric substance, processual nature and dynamic structure.
2. Exposition
First and foremost, the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language, as opposed to structural linguistics, focalises its attention on both personal and social aspects of verbal-generative processes of writers and recipients. Therefore, it has become clear that the realisation and interpretation of particular strategies of verbal communication cannot be put into practice without subjective and sociocultural levels of the communicative process in mind. Hence the necessity of developing a relatively vast array of scientific approaches to language and speech, namely: cognitive, discursive, pragmatic and cultural.
The cognitive aspect represents the intentionality of verbal-cognitive activity, while the discursive aspect aims at determination of the generative power of communicative space. In fact, according to modern linguists, discourse is understood as a complex communicative phenomenon that, apart from texts, encompasses numerous extralinguistic factors essential for the understanding of texts (knowledge of the world, opinions, presuppositions, goals of senders). The question is, how does discursive pragmatics take into consideration underlying cognitive processes? Numerous linguists tend to postulate the existence of two core components of the cognitive discourse analysis - the structures of knowledge representation and the systems of its conceptual organisation. In other words, the cognitive layer of the paradigm in question is a source of two core terms: categorisation and conceptualisation of human experience [1, c. 219]. Conceptualisation is directed at establishing minimal units of content, being the structures of knowledge, while categorization is directed at assigning similar structures into major groups - categories. Both processes actually stem from pragmatic linguistics, since they are designed to devise and group concepts.
Conceptualisation boils down to mental construction of perceived objects, which ultimately results in the formation of subjective and socioculturally valid views of the world - concepts that are taken into consideration by the both components of the subparadigm in question: cognitive and pragmatic. This can be explained by the fact that the image of an object, as a foundation of the concept, maintaining the relation with the real object and not being its copy, is inherently tied with both cognitive processes and intentional pragmatics. To be exact, concepts, in spite of being expressed by means of language, are always pre-verbally semiotically con-
structed. In addition, along with the universal cognitive processes of the human mind, there is also a possibility for individual concepts to be formed. The perception of literary language, according to P.I. Pavilenis, "does not exclude the qualitative development of individual conceptual systems as containing "subjective world images" (in the form of subjective opinions and knowledge) [12, c. 263]. Some psycholinguists in fact agree with this view on concepts. "If a concept is an ideal entity, i.e. it exists in our minds, it is therefore obvious that the same name (word) can be linked to various mental constructs in the minds of various people. Thus, different languages "conceptualise", i.e. distinguish different elements of the reality; on the contrary, the same word of a language can represent various concepts in the minds of various people" [14, c. 3].
It allows writers and readers to have more possibilities of hermeneutic manoeuvring while approaching a literary text. On the one hand, the system of concepts in their minds becomes a heuristic instrument of the interpretation of the semantic content of a text. On the other hand, a concept is a derivate of the hermeneutic human ability to cognise - the ability to interpret, encode and store diverse types of impressions, emotions and understandings of the products of cognitive processes. It can be said that a concept is formed through everything that is altogether defined by pragmatic linguistics as the directive function of language - the psychological inculcation, the altering of verbal-cognitive processing, feeling and reacting, which is predominantly not perceivable for the ones under the influence of the suggestion embodied in literary texts.
3. The scheme of the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm In cognitive linguapoetics the directive aspect is not connected with the hypnotic hindering of the conscious and critical reception of the semantic content of literary texts, yet it still depends on the influence on the mind of a reader. Such an understanding of the literary suggestion has enabled J. Cohen to assert that in the case of poetry "the question is not about the message itself, as a system of signs, but about the subjective reaction triggered in the mind of the receiver". It was not accidental that Ch. Baudelaire defined verbal art as a product of suggestive magic that merges the object and the subject, the outer and the inner worlds.
Writers and readers are often obliged, even on the subconscious level, to overpass the chasm between cognitive semantics and pragmatics of communicative acts. On the one hand, human speech acts (including language itself) are contrasted with the outer and the inner world of humans, as the former can be termed as semi-otic analogues of the latter, or their cognitive reflections. On the other hand, a speech act is considered as their extension in the sense that a word, according to M.M. Bakhtin, and any other act, is a specific kind of event and deed. M. M. Bakhtin fought against boiling down of verbal art to mere operations on a text, since it is not a simple manipulation of means of expression. Both authors and readers live in a text on the total level of their existence's width, they fall and rise not in the narrow sense of "aesthetic feeling", but in the whole substance of described events. Verbal art is therefore open to the world to such an extent that the boundaries between the former and the latter disappear. For instance, this is how the imagery of Dina Rubina's verbal art is constructed in the fragment of her novel "Sunday Mass in Toledo". Compare the original text with its English translation: Опять заговорили жалобно, перебивая друг друга, колокола соседних церквей, им отвечал с Сан-Марко ровный гул, на фоне которого всплескивали верхние колокола. ... И длился, длился разговор колоколов, раскачивалась невидимая сеть, опутывая шпили, крыши, купола, каналы...
Again mournfully spoke, interrupting each other, the bells of neighbouring churches, being responded from San-Marko by the static hum, on the background of which the upper bells splashed... And continued, continued the chat of bells, swayed the invisible web, enfolding the spikes, the roofs, the domes, the channels.
Such a balanced architectonics of the text definitely cannot be termed as a mere manipulation of words. Indeed, it can be termed as the verbalized reality, represented as an event!
The bells spoke, mournfully spoke, the static hum responded, the upper bells splashed, the invisible web, enfolding the spikes, the roofs, the domes, the channels... These multi-layered and truly meaningful word-structures are constructed along with the eventive reality.
Nonetheless, it is possible that the act of imagination occurs even before the formation of its verbal organ-ics, before the act of verbal manifestation. In fact, true verbal artists possess the ability to perceive the reality in a mythical manner, where the words and the reality merge into one. In addition, this cannot be regarded as a useless rudiment, since it constitutes a powerful source of the poetical energy of their verbal subconsciousness. Subsequently, the verbal event, understood by M. M. Bakhtin as epiphany, does become a property of verbal art being reminiscent of the revealed truth of the world.
Thus, the unification of the basic principles of cognitive linguistics and pragmatic linguistics into one subparadigm is conditioned by their genetic interrelations within the realm of various issues incorporated into their mutual object of study, namely: cognition and nomination, perception and connotative processing of a signifier - a subjective (commoditive-emotional) image of the objective world, which is constructed preverbally. Their organic coexistence directly originates from the following three layers of the linguacognitive mechanism of literary text generation. Note that its key purpose is to explicate the direct, indispensable link between authors and their literary texts.
1. The perceptive-nominative act unfolds as of the moment of having represented the communicative event as a signifier of the extralinguistic reality in the mind of an individual - the potential discursive space (including its every single constituent: communicators, eventive and non-eventive components). A product of this representation is the signifier - a preverbal (emotional) subjective image of a communicative event assembled by the author. Accordingly, G. V Kolshanskij affirms that "a perceptive act, being a portion of human mental activity, is in fact inherently infiltrated by the, so-called, evaluative moment that is nothing else than the subject's mental operations made with regard to the object of speech (perception, comprehension, conclusion, generalisation etc.). This can be termed as "evaluation" in the widest sense possible. Therefore, evaluation occurs when any kind of contact between the subject and the objective world is made" [10, c. 142].
2. On the second level of perception, the emotional image-signifier of verbal-cognitive activity undergoes consequent processing - conceptualisation, i.e. the transformation of a commoditive-emotional signifier into an artistic concept. The latter encapsulates the following elements of the former: its standard meaning, results of subjective interpretation of its commoditive-denotative sense and perception of the associative-figurative discourse structure of the presumed text creation process. As a result of conceptualization of commoditive-de-notative sense, being the object of communication, discursive consciousness produces the semantic content of literary words - their denotative sememes. They form the particular space, in which the products of two sources of derivative sense (cognition and connotative pragmatics) are integrated.
3. Emotional processing of denotative foundations of artistic concepts in mind takes place parallel to conceptualisation. Thus, subjective senses that determine the connotational potential of literary words are formed, being the representation of poetic concepts. Linguistic connotations are in fact based on these senses, so that the latter become the point of orientation in establishing the former. As linguistic connotations are products of emotional processing of denotative foundations of artistic concepts, connotative sememes (emotional, axiomatic and culturally marked senses) constitute the semantic core of literary words, determining their pragmatic perspective (see the scheme).
The perceptive-nominative act
4
Denotation - the preverbal image of a communicative event (discourse)
4 I
Conceptualisation of the literary text
Axio-imaginative processing of a signifier - connotation
Cognitive-pragmatic foundation of verbalisation
4
Verbal representation - the literary text itself
As a result, cognitive and pragmatic constants of discursive consciousness exist in a dialectic unity through persistent conditioning and infiltrating each other. This fact undoubtedly becomes a fair ground for devising the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of modern linguistics. In other words, by means of this scheme it is portrayed that writer's discourse is the condition of formation of concepts, which in turn reside in the background of mere words of literary texts.
4. Illocution
The modern research is devoted not only to the directive function of verbal art, but also to the, so-called, implicit ways of influencing recipients in everyday communication. Looking at language from this perspective, K. F. Sedov has developed the suggestive model of interpersonal communication. Its goal is to examine manipulation in everyday communication, the subconscious stimuli and motivations that translate into the success or failure in interactions between people [13, c. 136].
The current issue of cognitive-pragmatic linguistics is this kind of verbal-cognitive representation of knowledge that allows exerting an effective impact on receivers of literary texts. Primarily, in order to interpret literary texts adequately, it is crucial for the author and the recipients to maintain balance in the "modelling" of their knowledge of the world. Communication becomes possible specifically due to possessing in the minds of both parties, in their images of the world, similar informational "concretions" ("frames", "mental models", "scenarios", "situational models"). Thereby cognitive linguistics suggests some ways of analysing the properties that make literary texts cohesive and coherent.
The basis of creation and comprehension of a literary text as a product of discursive activity is not only abstract knowledge of stereotypic events and situations - as it is in case of mental models, scenarios and frames - but also the personal knowledge of language speakers, which accumulates their preceding personal experiences, presuppositions as well as intentions, feelings and emotions. In view of this, T. van Dijk proclaims that people do not act in the real world and do not talk about it, but do talk only about their subjective models of phenomena and situations of the real world. Accordingly, it is important to consider the following stance of B. Gasparov: "the uniqueness of the subjective life-linguistic experience of people constantly distances one person from another" [6, c. 16]. In relation to this, a question arises: does it become an interference in the mutual understanding of communicators?
The fundamental premise, purported in the article, is that communicators always understand each other one way or another. The other problem is the extent to which they do - fully or partially. In spite of this, aiming at understanding is labelled as the basic rule of verbal communication. However, what is the way of accomplishing it? Obviously, it is not limited specifically to the understanding of words and phrases in the received message. This is predominantly accomplished when communicators are capable of focusing on the intention of their interlocutors within their own discursive activity and attempting to determine what the other party is trying to express, what speech act it is trying to perform.
The first attempt to address the issue of speech from the perspective of the sender's actions was made by J. Austin, J. Searle and P. Grice, who developed the well-known speech acts theory. The main term of J. Austin's theory is a speech act - a component of speech that encompasses a single intention ("illocution"), a minimal unit of speech and its ultimate effect. The innovation in this approach is the assumption that a minimal unit of discursive activity does not equivalent to a sentence or another unit of language, but to an action - making particular acts happen, for instance, an act of statement, question, order, description, explanation, apology, thankfulness and salutation.
The understanding of a speech act, proposed by J. Austin, is elaborated on in the paper "Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language" by J. Searle, where speaking is interpreted as putting particular actions into practice [2]. As defined by J. Searle, speech is performative in nature, thus its aim is to introduce changes both into discursive space of the sender and into the mental images of the receiver. "The illocutionary intention" of the sender boils down to what the sender is trying to convey by means of language, while the essence of the process of communication revolves around deducing the intention of the sender. In order to explain the issue of understanding in communication itself, a term was introduced - "the effective illocutionary act", the meaning of which is to accomplish a particular goal, which was the source of its emergence.
The examination of verbal communication within the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language is developed in order to determine the factors that facilitate the appropriate interpretation of the author's intentions by the readers. In fact, the condition of "the effective illocutionary act" is everything that resides outside the boundaries of verbal expression, yet is the inherent part of the message. This argument is definitely in favour of the cognitive approach, since intention is formulated on the level of deep mental structures, being expressed neither through signs of language, nor through signs of speech. Irrespectively, as shown by I. I. Gorelov, they can become utterly semantically loaded paraverbal means, just as in dramatic dialogue [7]. In this case, it is
impossible not to resort to discourse analysis, as the degree of perceiving the nonverbally expressed information, i.e. its fragmentation and ordering, is radically different from the surface level information (in verbal communication). Actually, its majority exists "out of the frame", beyond the content of a text - the addressee of the sender's discourse is forced to guess, ponder and visualise. What remains "out of the frame" has its roots in the personal experience of the communicators, their presuppositions and the sociocultural background, which either brings them together or, in contrast, moves them outside the boundary of mutual understanding.
The sources of the formation of cognitive models and methods of discourse analysis in the enlisted approaches (with all of the differences between them) were the achievements of linguistics, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, communication theory, sociopsychology and artificial intelligence.
Although there are major differences among these approaches, a unifying and mutual element present in all of them can be spotted, which is also mutual for all cognitive-based linguistic inquiries. It is the anthropocentr-icism of language, or, to be exact, the theoretical and cultural facts and experiences instilled in language that are differently constituted, semanticised and verbalised by communicators and respectively differently represented in their linguistic images of the world.
Eventually, in the epicentre of the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language dwell specific synergeti-cally complex, open and self-developing phenomena of human verbal-cognitive activity (discourse):
- the principles and mechanisms of human discursive activity,
- in broad sociocultural contexts, the goals, intentions and conditions of discursive activity in mind,
- the categories of cognitive linguistics: cognitive structures and cognitive processes, regarded as the essence of discursive consciousness of communicators.
5. Discursive consciousness
The starting point of elaborating on the term discursive consciousness is the identification of the meaning of its linguistic components. Defining the term consciousness unequivocally and clearly indeed can be considered utterly problematic, if possible at all. Yet, among all existing definitions, the most relevant in the context of the issue of discursive consciousness is the one, according to which it is the knowledge that can be conveyed, therefore becoming the possession of other members of a community. In Russian language it is expressed by the word сознание, where the prefix co- means 'mutual' (compare with cooperation, coordination, co-author) and the root знание means 'knowledge'- in result it is mutual knowledge.
People often believe that the word discursive can be regarded as the synonym of the word reflectional. In fact, such a semantisation of this word is conceivable. In this case, the adjective discursive belongs to the semantic field of the word conceptual. Actually, it is common to refer to the conceptual/discursive and non-conceptual/nondiscursive state of mind. Note that researchers of Tybetic texts enumerate three types of human wisdom: the wisdom of the listener, the wisdom of the thinker and the wisdom of the meditator-perceiver. The former two types of wisdom are the ones that directly represent discursive consciousness (i.e. the consciousness in which there is a differentiation between the subject and the object). This means that discursive consciousness is a kind of consciousness that relies on the juxtaposed participants of verbal-cognitive activity: the subject and the object. There are two fundamental trains of thought on which this understanding of discursive consciousness is based: verbal-cognitive activity as the essential condition of the emergence of discursive consciousness and verbal behaviour as its constituent and form of expression. Therefore, the central issue of discursive consciousness is the constant reflexive monitoring of verbal-cognitive activity, which automatically unfolds in the minds of communicators.
It is worth highlighting that this reflexive monitoring of verbal-cognitive activity is continuously active, encapsulating the behaviour of not only speakers themselves, but also other parties of the communicative process: the subject, to whom the message is addressed, as well as those ones, who observe the verbal-cognitive activity. An apt example of the situation can be this verbal-cognitive activity that is spectated in dramatic theatres, where the reflexive monitoring of speech is performed by both actors and the audience. This means that actors not only consciously control the course of their activity, but also expect the audience to do the same. In fact, this is the only way of maintaining the invisible "contact between the stage and the room", which subsequently produces various types of verbal-cognitive states: tension, relaxed meditative-perceptive conditions, or a neutral state that may foreshadow the failure of the show. In the process of such "cooperation", the sense
is discursively constructed on the basis of respective verbal behaviours, being conscious and intentional on the part of the actors and subconscious on the part of the audience. A proof of this is the fact that actors can explain, if asked, how and why they act on the stage, how they speak and how they behave while speaking (verbal behaviour) in order to realise the particular conception behind it. In addition, stage directions also play a significant role, since by means of them the original author dots those i's that have to be taken into consideration by the director, the actors and the audience.
An alike process occurs in everyday communication when speakers adjust the "tuning forks" of their discursive consciousness to the expected reception of their message by the interlocutors or the audience. Then the parallel reflexive speech monitoring relies on the sole strategic goal: to make the recipients react in a specific manner on the communicative levels of their mentality, nonverbality and veibality. Verbal-cognitive harmony is in fact produced owing to the linguistic competence of the interlocutors, which can be definitely termed as a cornerstone of discursive consciousness.
Undoubtedly, discursive consciousness "works" even more clearly in the minds of authors of literary texts, whose verbal-cognitive activity is similar to the activity of conductors of symphonic orchestras. This stems from the fact that it is crucial for both groups of subjects to control the entirety of diverse semantic polyphony within their discursive consciousness, originating from mental engagement into respective discursive events. It occurs despite the fact that reflexive speech monitoring is relatively minimal: discursive consciousness works on the level of subconsciousness and superconsciousness within verbal art - it can be depicted as a stream of the associative-imaginative continuum of verbal-cognitive activity. It becomes the realm of the author's "verbal torment", who often intuitively chooses a word, the sense of which is relevant for the respective discursive situation.
Bearing this in mind, discursive consciousness is tightly intertwined with discursive subconsciousness and superconsciousness in the process of synergetic formation of an associative-imaginative verbal-cognitive continuum.
Discursive subconsciousness encompasses everything that one realises or can realise in particular discursive circumstances. It primarily includes automated discursive habits, deeply internalized social norms, as well as sources of speech conflicts. Discursive subconsciousness protects the consciousness of interlocutors from being overloaded and psychologically strained.
Discursive superconsciousness is the epicentre of creative intuition. It is activated at the initial stage of verbal activity that, as a rule, is not controlled by consciousness. It is a unique stronghold of verbal creativity, the defensive walls of which protect the formulated "psycholinguistic mutations" of a literary concept from the ste-reotypicality of still consciousness. This allows disposing of the previously accumulated discursive experience, on the basis of which all the typical cognitive structures, discursive situations and discursive-communicative strategies are assembled. Note that consciousness does not leave superconsciousness without supervision. The former comes into play at the stage of making a choice amongst a number of arising "psycholinguistic mutations", when it becomes inevitable to level down the obscure associative-imaginative relations of the literary concept to the clear verbal syntagmatics of fully-fledged words with the assistance of their logical analysis and the criteria of discursive habits. Indeed, the cognitive kernel of any discourse is a concept, around of which discourse truly unfolds. This is the reason why discursive consciousness selects, on the one hand, a concept to be the root of discourse, as well as, on the other hand, the name for this concept and the respective verbal context, inside of which the text is being shaped.
6. The method
In view of the aforementioned theoretical exploration, it seems relevant to integrate the discursive-herme-neutic method of literary text analysis into the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of modern linguistics that comprises an innovational cognitive-culturological analysis of discursive activity of writers and readers and traditional contextual analysis. Its key priority is to extract the systematic interrelations of a text that implicitly emerge among the constituents of its axiosemantic content and the semantic clusters of the entire creative discourse.
The research area and possibilities of the developed method can be presented by means of the following system of research procedures:
1. The extraction of the specificity of the cultural-historical space, conditioning the course of authors' and readers' discursive activity. In order to achieve this, it is obligatory to: 1) understand the general his-
torical-cultural background of the epoch; 2) focus on such cultural conditions and habits that supplement additional meanings to the described actions and events; 3) take into consideration the spiritual-moral level of the text's addressees (for instance, the implied readers of N.A. Nekrasov's "Grandfather Frost Red Nose" or M. Y. Lermontov "Death of the Poet").
2. The extraction of the author's intentions. In order to achieve this, it is obligatory to: 1) examine explicit statements or recurring phrases; 2) identify and understand objectifying text fragments; 3) determine, a) which issues are not addressed; b) which issues are particularly stressed.
3. The hermeneutic extraction of the relations between particular text fragments, their respective context and the entire artistic discourse. In order to achieve this, it is obligatory to resort to the so-called cluster analysis (with the goal of describing the mechanisms of verbalization of basic concepts, representing the concepto-sphere of the language of the analysed literary work). The following tasks are set in order to achieve this goal:
1) to pinpoint the core semantic clusters of the text and to show the way in which they merge into one entity;
2) to depict, how the semantic cluster in question correlates with the author's stream of thought;
3) to determine the perspective that is chosen by the author to convey the semantic content of each cluster. As it is shown in the literature, it can carry the properties of the following two types: a) noumenological (if the events are presented in the way they actually are) or b) phenomenological (if the events are presented in the way the author interprets them);
4) to draw the line between descriptive and prescriptive truth;
5) to identify both additional details, present in semantic clusters, and the didactic essence, concentrated in them.
6) to determine the subject or a group of subjects to whom particular semantic clusters are addressed.
Generally speaking, the discursive-hermeneutic analysis is conducted with the three key questions in mind,
each of which is more specific than the preceding one:
1. What was the general historical environment in which the author lived during the process of writing a literary text?
2. What was the historical-cultural context and which objective is instilled in the literary work?
3. What is the direct context of the examined fragment?
In a nutshell, the aforementioned method is based on the ideas of cognitive linguapoetics, yet the source of its emergence is the traditional theory of literary language. In fact, each cognitive methodology originates from the analysis of texts regarded as the products of writers' discursive activity. The foundation of a literary text is the so-called poetic language, being not only the mechanisms and means of the creation of prosaic as well as poetic literary texts, but also their reading and interpretation by the recipients. The currently advanced method of the cognitive-pragmatic text analysis is different from the linguastylistic method primarily because of the fact that the latter is useful specifically in the case of literary texts with the categorically meaningful suggestive implications. In addition, another crucial difference between the two can be spotted - in artistic discourse the author, the readers and the text itself do not exist in such a tight interrelation as it is considered in text analysis. To be specific, these components do not belong to the same communicative situation (from the temporal-spatial point of view). Hence the necessity to examine literary texts from the perspective of their intentionality, creation, conceptosphere, comprehension and exerted suggestive impact.
The cognitive-pragmatic analysis is designed to extract the axiosemantic space of verbal-cognitive activity of writers. Based on the existence of presuppositions, the aim is to explain, how various text-generating linguistic means are used by the author to realise the original artistic-semantic intention [9, c. 14].
The cognitive-pragmatic approach allows distilling the suggestive potential of a literary text. While "lin-guapoetic analysis starts somehow "from the top": from the artistic content-intention of the work to the analysis of employed linguistic means", the vector of the cognitive-pragmatic analysis is directed towards the opposite way: from the analysis of employed linguistic means to the extraction and interpretation of the axiosemantic content of a literary work. This means that writers always have an idea on the back of their heads that is expressed by means of the components of their literary work. Yet, it is crucial to remember that a text itself is only a partial verbalisation of its underlying conceptosphere. It stems from either the inherent limitations of literary language, or the lack of need or necessity on the author's part to convey every possible detail of the fictional universe, or the creative process of apperception, resulting in writing subsequent drafts of the text. Thus, vari-
ous sources of information apart from the literary work are of great value, since they can give an opportunity to bring the readers significantly closer to original concepts - these might be interviews, diaries, notes, drafts etc. Apart from this, since every single literary work is created for its readers, the focal point of the cognitive-pragmatic text analysis is the issue of its addressment. Accordingly, it becomes particularly crucial to examine the suggestive properties of a text. In spite of the fact that the issue of addressment has been already raised by text analysts (the works of A.V Polonsky), the manipulative function of literary texts, their addressment and general cohesion still remain outside the area of consideration of the cognitive-pragmatic research. Thus, one of the goals of the cognitive-pragmatic analysis is to fill this gap through resorting to discourse analysis.
As T. van Dijk asserts, "discourse in the broad sense of the word is a complex unity of linguistic form, meaning and action" [8, c. 122], and this could be encompassed by the term communicative event or communicative act. Taking this understanding of discourse into consideration, the cognitive-pragmatic analysis is not limited to single sentences, but to entire texts. In this context, discursive activity becomes the only environment in which texts can be and actually are generated. To be exact, the latter is a perceivable, semiotic representation of the former - literary texts are regarded as linear layers of linguistic units that mirror underlying nonlinear discursive structures. Looking at this from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective, one can recognise three distinctive features of literary texts, namely their semantic, formal as well as discursive dependency upon their authors. What ends up in the epicentre of the subparadigm is a communicative event with the synergetic unity of all of its constituents: communicators, recipients, their personal and social background, as well as the suggestive layers of artistic verbalization of the underlying communicative situation and discursive intentionality. Consequently, the cognitive-pragmatic analysis is directed at determining the illocutionary forces behind the impact that is exerted on the readers of a literary work.
7. Conclusion
Eventually, the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language analysis is naturally interwoven with cognitive linguistics, communicative pragmatics and discourse theory. The role of its internal foundation is played by the anthropocentric energy belonging to all components of the linguistic theory developed in the article. Its multi-layered synergy is the distinctive property of the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm - this sets the subparadigm apart from not only immanent structural linguistics, but also from the aspectual analysis of language within the methodology of modern approaches (cognitive linguistics, cultural linguistics and communicative linguistics). Ultimately, for cognitive-pragmatic linguistics it is central to focus not only on language as an indistinguishable unity of form and content, but also on a higher entity - the creative unity of language, communication and humans. This trinity is the true condition that enables people to exist, think, perceive and create an axiosemantic space in their life - the epicentre of human culture and civilisation.
To sum up, modern linguistics is directed at merging the principles of functional-communicative linguistics with the theory of human verbal-cognitive activity in order to extract the anthropocentric synergy of all (linguistic as well as extralinguistic) components of discursive text creation. In fact, this is the distinctive feature of the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of modern linguistics as compared to structural linguistics (even to its functional variant, purported in the works of the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle). Their structural-systemic methodology excluded various extralinguistic factors from its area of interest, since from their point of view such factors were not vital sources of influence on the functional potential of language. In other words, the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language analysis with its fundamental postulates is in stark contrast with not only functional-grammatical theory of language, the methodology of which boils down to analysing the statics of words and their grammatical forms, but also systemic-structural theory of language that examines the combinations possible on the level of linguistic meaning. Therefore, it is worth pinpointing that the fusion of the assumptions of cognitive and pragmatic linguistics allows examining the transformation of the intellectual-emotional energy of the subjects of literary communication (writers and readers), comprising mental, discursive and emotional psychodynamics of the human soul, into verbal-cognitive activity employed to fulfill one's needs, goals, intentions and expectations.
Список литературы
1. Alefirenko Nikolai F., Chumak-Zhun Irina I., Ozerova Elena G. and Stebunova Kira K.: Text and discourse (Between Scylla and Charybdis of Cognitive Linguopoetics. Journal of Language and Literature. Vol. 6, № 2. 2015. Pp. 157-160.
2. Searle, John Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 214 p.
3. Todorov Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977. Pp. 42-52.
4. Алефиренко Н. Ф. Лингвокультурология: ценностно-смысловое пространство языка: учебное пособие. Москва: Флинта: Наука, 2010. 75 с.
5. Бахтин М. М. К философии поступка. Философия и социология науки и техники. Ежегодник 1984-1985. C. 80-126.
6. Гаспаров Б. М. Язык, память, образ. Лингвистика языкового существования. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 1996. 352 с.
7. Голованева М. А. Коммуникативно-прагматическое выражение семейно-бытового конфликта в русской драме конца ХХ века // Гуманитарные исследования. Вып. 8. 2010. С. 28-34.
8. Дейк Тён А. ван. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация. Благовещенск: БГК им. И. А. Бодуэна де Кур-тенэ, 2000. 308 с.
9. Задорнова В. Я. Словесно-художественное произведение на разных языках как предмет лингвопо-этического исследования: автореф. дис. ... д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.04. Москва, 1992. 41 с.
10. КолшанскийГ. В. Соотношение субъективных и объективных факторов в языке. М.: Наука, 1975, 231 с.
11. Озерова Е. Г. Протодискурсивное пространство поэтической прозы И. С. Тургенева: материалы Междунар. научно-практ. конф. «Актуальные научные разработки 2009». C. 57-62.
12. Павилёнис Р. И. Проблема смысла: современный логико-философский анализ языка. М.: Мысль, 1983. 286 с.
13. Седов К. Ф. Дискурс как суггестия: Иррациональное воздействие в межличностном общении. М.: Лабиринт, 2011. 336 с.
14. Фрумкина Ревекка М. (1992): Концептуальный анализ с точки зрения лингвиста и психолога (концепт, категория, прототип) // Научно-техн. информация. Вып. 2, № 3. C. 1-9.
Николай Федорович Алефиренко, доктор филологических наук, профессор (НИУ) Белгородского государственного национального исследовательского университета, г. Белгород, e-mail: n-alefirenko@ rambler.ru.
Конрад Рахут, Университет имени Адама Мицкевича, г. Познань, Польша.
Для цитирования: Алефиренко Н. Ф., Конрад Рахут. Когнитивная лингвопрагматика в языке современной науки // Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2017. № 3. С. 7-18.
cognitive lingvopragmatika in the language of modern science
Nikolai F. Alefirenko, ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4083-4486
National Research University Russia, Belgorod, Belgorod State
Konrad Rachut,
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland, Poznan
Modern linguistics aims at fusing the postulates of functional-communicative linguistics with the theory of human verbal-cognitive activity in order to extract the anthropocentric synergy of all (extralinguistic and linguistic) components of discursive text generation. In fact, this is the distinctive feature of the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of the linguistics of the 21st century as compared to structural linguistics (even to its functional variant, purported in the works of the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle). Their structural-systemic methodology excluded various extralinguistic factors from its area of interest, since from their point of view such factors were not vital sources of influence on the functional potential of language.
While for the schools of structural linguistics it was sufficient to purport the existence of language as an abstract web of interrelations, it is insufficient for the cognitive-pragmatic linguistics. According to its methodological postulates, linguistic analysis focuses not only on the system of language, but also on human discursive activity. It makes it possible to approach the understanding of literary text resonance (the unity of a communicative event, its intellectual-emotional reception and architectonics of the narrative), being the particular synergy thatforms the axiosemantic field of a text, consequently realising the cognitive, pragmatic and directive functions of language. In other words, the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of language analysis with its fundamental postulates is in stark contrast with not only functional-grammatical theory of language, the methodology of which boils down to analysing the statics of words and their grammatical forms, but also with systemic-structural theory of language that examines the combinatory-semantic nature of linguistic meaning. Consequently, this fusion of the assumptions of cognitive and pragmatic linguistics allows examining the transformation of the intellectual-emotional energy of the subjects of literary communication (writers and readers), comprising mental, discursive and emotional psychodynamics of the human soul, into verbal-cognitive activity employed to fulfill one's needs, goals, intentions and expectations. Within the scope of this approach end up the situations in which humans act as either the subjects of verbal interaction, or the objects of verbal-cognitive activity, or the characters of works of literature, ultimately becoming the focal point.
Communicative anthropocentrism regards its multi-layered synergy as the distinctive property of the cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm - this sets the subparadigm apartfrom not only linguistic semiology, but also from the aspectual analysis of language within the methodology of modern approaches (cognitive linguistics, cultural linguistics and communicative linguistics). All things considered, for the cognitive-pragmatic linguistics it is central to focus not only on the system of langauge, but also on the deepest mechanisms of human verbal-cognitive activity that translates into the complex unity of the dynamic system of language, verbal communication and the connotative influence on human thoughts and feelings.
Key words: cognitive linguistics, pragmatic linguistics, cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm, verbal-cognitive activity, discourse, discursive activity, illocution, directive function of language.
References
1. Alefirenko Nikolai F., Chumak-Zhun Irina I., Ozerova Elena G. and Stebunova Kira K.: Text and discourse (Between Scylla and Charybdis of Cognitive Linguopoetics. Journal of Language and Literature, vol. 6, no 2, 2015, pp. 157-160.
2. Searle John Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969, 214 p.
3. Todorov Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose, Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977, pp. 42-52.
4. Alefirenko N. F. Lingvokulturologiya: tsennostno-smyislovoe prostranstvo yazyika [Linguoculturology: the value-semantic space of language. Tutorial]. Uchebnoe posobie, Moskva: Flinta: Nauka, 2010, 75 p.
5. Bahtin M. M. K filosofii postupka. Filosofiya i sotsiologiya nauki i tehniki [To the philosophy of action. Philosophy and sociology of science and technology]. Ezhegodnik 1984-1985, pp. 80-126.
6. Gasparov B. M. Yazyik, pamyat, obraz. Lingvistika yazyikovogo suschestvovaniya [Language, memory, image. Linguistics of language existence], M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1996, 352 p.
7. Golovaneva M. A. Kommunikativno-pragmaticheskoe vyirazhenie semeyno-byitovogo konflikta v russ-koy drame kontsa XX veka [Communicative-pragmatic expression of the family-domestic conflict in the Russian drama of the late twentieth century]. Gumanitarnyie issledovaniya, vol. 8, 2010, pp. 28-34.
8. Deyk, TYon A. van Yazyik. Poznanie. Kommunikatsiya [Language. Cognition. Communication], Bla-goveschensk: BGK im. I. A. Boduena de Kurtene, 2000, 308 s.
9. Zadornova V. Ya. Slovesno-hudozhestvennoe proizvedenie na raznyih yazyikah kak predmet lingvo-poeticheskogo issledovaniya [Verbal and artistic work in different languages as a subject of linguo-poetic research]: avtoreferat dis. ... doktora filologicheskih nauk: 10.02.04., Moskva, 1992, 41 p.
10. Kolshanskiy G. V. Sootnoshenie sub'ektivnyih i ob'ektivnyih faktorov v yazyike [The ratio of subjective and objective factors in the language], M.: Nauka, 1975, 231 p.
11. Ozerova E. G. Protodiskursivnoe prostranstvo poeticheskoy prozyi I.S. Turgeneva [Protodiscursive space of poetic prose IS. Turgenev]. In: Materialyi mezhdunar. nauchno-prakt. konf. «Aktualnyie nauchnyie razrabotki 2009», pp. 57-62.
12. PavilYonis R. I. Problema smyisla: sovremennyiy logiko-filosofskiy analiz yazyika [Problem of meaning: modern logical and philosophical analysis of the language], M.: Myisl, 1983, 286 p.
13. Sedov K. F. Diskurs kak suggestiya: Irratsionalnoe vozdeystvie v mezhlichnostnom obschenii [Discourse as suggestion: Irrational impact in interpersonal communication], M.: Labirint, 2011, 336 p.
14. Frumkina, Revekka M. (1992): Kontseptualnyiy analiz s tochki zreniya lingvista i psihologa (kontsept, kategoriya, prototip) [Conceptual analysis from the point of view of a linguist and a psychologist (concept, category, prototype).]. Nauchno-tehn. informatsiya, vol. 2, no 3, pp. 1-9.
Nikolai F. Alefirenko, Doctor of Philology, Professor (SRU), Belgorod National Research State University E-mail: n-alefirenko@rambler.ru
Konrad Rachut, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland, Poznan
For atation: Nikolai F. Alefirenko, Konrad Rachut Cognitive lingvopragmatika in the language of modern science. Aktual'nyeproblemy filologii ipedagogiceskoj lingvistiki, 2017, 3, pp. 7-18 (In Russ.).
