Karshi state university master of arts department

2.2. The cognitive model of the event as a tool for understanding phraseology in narrative discourse
To date in cognitive linguistics there is no single universal approach to the concept of «event». N.D. Arutyunova refers this concept to nonobject entities and subsumes the term to a whole series of nonobject (event) meanings, denoting everything that «happens to objects: process, state, action, change of state of affairs,’events’”⁵⁰. The heterogeneity of the concept «event» was also noted by V.Z. Demyankov, who distinguishes: 1)event as an idea (events understood in this way are defined by the intensional of the name and can fully overlap each other in space and time); 2) event proper, or referential event, defined by the extensional: two events - ideas can correspond to one referential event; 3)textual event - hypothetical interpretation of the referential event. Further, when analyzing fragments of narrative discourse, we will refer predominantly to the referential event, which has a threefold localization: «it is localized in some human (singular or social) sphere, determining the system of relations in which it enters; it occurs in some time and takes place in some real space».
In the present study we consider an event as a cognitive unit, which can be represented in the form of a model. Models are episodic cognitive representations of events that are described in discourse. They include the accumulated experience of previous events with the same or similar objects, persons or phenomena and are required as a basis for interpreting discourse.
Of considerable interest in connection with the study of the peculiarities of the formation of the cognitive structure of an event are the models developed by L.Talmi and V.Y. Shabes. The comparison of a cognitive unit (event) with a communicative unit allows us to reveal the important role of the cognitive component in the communicative parameters of FI. Therefore, some provisions of the concepts of these linguists are discussed below in order to identify the possibilities of their application to the analysis of the communicative parameters of FI in narrative discourse.
L.Talmy describes the peculiarities of the structural organization of the cognitive representation of an event with the help of the semantic roles of Figure and Background. Figure is understood as an object moving along some trajectory or resting (but capable of movement) in some place relative to a certain coordinate system; this object is thought of as a variable with a special meaning.
The background is a static reference scheme or a point of reference within that scheme, relative to which the movement or localization of the Figure is described⁵¹.
In addition to the two basic semantic roles of cognitive representation - the Figure and the Background - the scientist singles out the Predicate (Motion or State-of-Motion), which serves to state the fact of the displacement or localization of the object-Figure relative to the object-Background, and, accordingly, can have a dynamic value - “MOVE» or static - «BE-L» (=be located). The fourth basic role, called by this author, «Path» or «Place» (Site), depending on the type of the Predicate, fixes the features of the movement/localization of the Figure relative to the Background. As a result, the basic structure of the event is obtained, which, according to L. Talmi, has a universal character and includes the following roles.
Thus, the advantage of this approach, in our opinion, is that it can be used to display the dynamic aspect of the event (that is, to indicate whether the object - the Figure is in motion or it is at rest), which is of great importance for the purposes of our study. . In addition, the use of this categorical apparatus for the analysis of FI makes it possible to establish what role the FI plays in the cognitive representation of the event.
The event, which is a complex dynamic unit unfolding in time, has a dual continuous-discrete nature. In this connection, as V.Y. Shabes notes, it turned out that «the use as a language of its description of limit (indivisible) and qualitatively determined in time (static) semantic entities leads to atomistic discretization of continuous dynamic entities». This fact served as the basis for the introduction of the concept of a «graded benchmark» into the event model, which is viewed as a single linear discrete-continuous cognitive coordinate. The use of FIs as degree benchmarks allows, in our opinion, to bring the qualitative characteristics of the model closer to the essential properties of the event being described.
According to V.Y. Shabes’s model, an event (Macro-event) in time acts as a trinity: Pre-event - End-event - Post-event. Endo-event is the marked event in question, with its own structure within its temporal boundaries. Pre-event - that which precedes Endo-event, it includes the Agent’s intention, planning and preparation of the action, the Agent’s experience in performing this kind of action. Post-event is what follows Endo-event, e.g., the planning of further action. Each of the three components of the trinity is subdivided into three time-ordered components: Potential - Realization - Result. Potential captures the subject components necessary for the Realization of an event. These include the necessary materials, means, tools, devices, details, and the agent’s physical data, i.e., the intentional components. Event Realization is the dynamic transformation of Potential into Result in time and space. As a gradual transition from Potential to Result, Event Realization can be represented in two ways: a) as a whole continuous (non-discrete) process in time b) as a discrete sequence of operations involving Agents, Tools, Means. All three stages of an Event are based on the same categorical scheme, however, the basic categories - Agents, Action, Object, Tool, Product, Material, etc. - are based on the same categorical scheme. - at different stages of the Event are modified in a certain way, for example, Material of the Pre-event acts as Object in the End Event and, further, becomes Product in the Post Event, etc.
To take into account the pragmatic aspect of the cognitive representation of an event, V.Y. Shabes suggests introducing the category Evaluation, which can be attributed both to the event as a whole, and to separate categories of the cognitive structure of the event - Place, Time, Action, Consequences, etc. Here is what V.Y. Shabes writes in this regard: «The object of evaluation may be both the End-event as a whole and its components: The Agent, its Intent, the Product, separately - the parameters of the Product, the structure of Realization, etc. In other words, Evaluation can have as its «object» a fragment of event structure of this or that degree of Generalization - Particularization».
Since all the components of the triad Pre-event - End-event - Post-event are interconnected with each other, we can assume that this model is the cognitive and semantic universal on the basis of which, in particular, such a fundamental category of discourse as coherence is realized, to which the next section of the chapter is devoted.
To conclude this section, let us emphasize that the theoretical approaches to the analysis of the pragmatic and communicative parameters of FI presented in this section differ significantly depending on the theories, methods, schools, and the individuality of scholars. In this respect, discourse analysis hardly differs from other disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Discourse, understood in this study as a text immersed in a situation of communication, allows for many dimensions. In any case, discourse analysis remains a linguistic procedure, since the linguistic level is the only dimension of discourse available for direct observation. According to the model we have chosen, the analysis of discourse includes consideration of one of the central theoretical concepts, which is connectedness or coherence. 2.3 Discourse coherence and FI
Coherence represents a certain organization of utterances in discourse. Almost everyone is able to distinguish coherent discourse from a disordered mass of utterances. «Discourse is not a consciousness that places its project in the external form of language, it is not language itself, much less a certain subject speaking it, but a practice that has its own forms of coherence and its own forms of sequence» (Foucault 1996: 168).
The term «coherence» is identified with the term «cohesion» in linguistic research conducted in the field of text linguistics. Scholars dealing with this problem can be divided into three groups: those who regard cohesion as a set of formal-grammatical intratextual connections in its opposition to coherence as a higher-order phenomenon that ensures the semantic unity of the text; those who identify them or consider them synonymous and those who do not distinguish the term coherence at all, analyzing cohesion in its two hypostases, i.e. i.e., simultaneously as a means of both formal and substantive textual coherence. In this connection it is not uninteresting to trace the distinction between the terms «logic» and «coherence» made by G. Guillaume. Referring to H.W. Leibniz’s quote «things interfere with each other, but ideas do not interfere with each other at all», the French scientist found it necessary to say that «with reification you have only the ways of coherence, with idealization without reification you have the ways of logic in front of you. Thus, logic prescribes a straight path to judgment. Coherence prescribes an ordered forward movement that is not carried out along such a straight path».
The above approaches to the concepts of «coherence» and «cohesion» allow us to conclude that, regardless of how the essence and limits of these concepts are understood, they all reveal a number of common points, the essence of which is that both cohesion and coherence ensure the integrity and unity of discourse. At the same time, we share the opinion of those linguists who believe that coherence is broader than cohesion and covers, in addition to the formal and grammatical aspects of the connection of statements, semantic-pragmatic, functional aspects of the semantic and active connection of discourse.
T. van Dijk considers discourse coherence at the local and global levels. Local coherence is defined in terms of relations between propositions expressed by neighboring sentences, and global coherence is viewed by T. van Dijk as the relation of each particular utterance to the general plan of communication (van Dijk 1989). Since discourse in the present study is analyzed from a linguistic perspective, the main task of this procedure is to find the meaning of discourse. Just as we want to know how the meanings of words in a sentence relate to form the meaning of a sentence, we need to know how the meanings of sentences relate to form the meaning of a whole sequence of sentences. In other words, how the propositions of discourse are linked to form a sequence and how they create the overall meaning of discourse. With this interpretation of discourse meaning, the core concept in discourse analysis becomes the propositional or semantic coherence of discourse. Semantic coherence of discourse.
The semantic coherence of discourse at the local level is defined by T. van Dijk in terms of relations between propositions that represent relations between facts in some possible world. At the same time, each meaningful discourse is not just a set of propositions, but an ordered sequence of them, where there are «conventional constraints on the possible order of propositions»⁵². This means, in particular, that the semantics of a sentence in a discourse is described taking into account the structures and interpretations of neighboring, usually preceding, sentences of the same text. Thus, the basic rule of semantic coherence is that «sentence A is related to sentence B if A refers to a situation or event that is a possible (probable, necessary) condition for the existence of the situation or event to which B refers (or vice versa)».
The importance of this rule for the present study lies in the awareness of the fact that preceding sentences can provide additional, and sometimes critical, information for interpreting discourse sentences. The semantic coherence of discourse cannot be fully explained in terms of local relations between propositions alone. Higher-level meanings are needed to establish some form of global discourse organization and control. Therefore, the next level of discourse analysis in this study is represented by a higher or more global level than the micro-level of words, sentences, and relations between sentences. To describe the discourse coherence of FI functioning at this level, we introduced into the conceptual apparatus of discourse analysis the notion of macrostructure proposed by T. van Dijk.
We used the notion of macrostructure to reflect the global content of discourse of FI functioning. This notion, according to T. van Dijk’s concept, explicitly shows the general topic or theme of discourse. The theme of discourse, represented as a macrostructure, differs from the theme of an individual sentence or utterance, usually represented by the noun group of the subject. The topic of each individual utterance in a discourse is conditioned by the way its information is distributed linearly, whereas the topic of a discourse indicates how its content is organized globally, that is, hierarchically. Since macrostructures, according to T. van Dijk, are semantic units, they must also consist of propositions, namely macropropropositions. A macroproposition is thus «a proposition derived from a series of propositions expressed by discourse propositions». Such a macroproposition, if I may draw a comparison from the field of biology, is a kind of genetic code for the global organization of meaning in discourse.
In the semantics of discourse the functioning of FI macrostructures is defined by us by the rules, the so-called macro-rules established by T. van Dijk. Macro-rules are rules of semantic mapping: they establish the connection of one sequence of propositions with sequences of higher-level propositions and thus derive the global meaning of discourse from local meanings, i.e. the meanings of discourse propositions. In T. van Dijk’s theory of discourse, the following macro-rules were identified:
1.Generalization: if there is a sequence of propositions, it is necessary to replace this sequence with a proposition deduced from each proposition of this sequence.
2.Construct: if there is a sequence of propositions, it must be replaced by a proposition deduced from the entire repertoire of propositions included in that sequence.
3.Omitting: when there is a propositional sequence, it is necessary to omit those propositions which do not serve as conditions for interpretation (e.g. a presupposition for another proposition in this sequence).
Continuing to explore the notion of the semantic macrostructure of discourse, T. van Dijk came to the conclusion that the coherence of discourse is based on the human factor that unites the intention of the speaker and the sequence of speech acts into a semantic whole. Thus, he suggests that coherence should be viewed from a pragmatic perspective. The next paragraph is devoted to the pragmatic coherence of discourse.
2.3.2 The role of FI in shaping the pragmatic coherence of discourse
The pragmatic coherence of discourse depends on our ability to derive macropragmatic content (i.e. one or more macro speech acts) from the chain of speech acts performed in each sentence of the text. Since the presence and strength of the connection between the speech acts constituting the discourse of FI functioning create the pragmatic coherence of the discourse, it seems possible to investigate the participation of FI in providing the strength of the connection between the speech acts, i.e. in providing the pragmatic coherence. We distinguish two types of pragmatic coherence: illocutionary and intentional.
To identify the illocutionary coherence of discourse, it is necessary to establish the illocutionary power of the utterances included in the discourse, relying on general pragmatic principles, on the understanding of context-specific expectations in the activity described. The most general condition for illocutionary coherence at the local level is that the preceding speech act sets the context in which the illocutionary evaluation of the subsequent speech act occurs. «There can be no isolated utterance. It always presupposes the utterances that precede it and follow it. No utterance can be either the first or the last, it is only a link in the chain and outside this chain cannot be studied». It is known that the perception of discourse as a sequence of connected and coordinated sentences requires the interpretation of these connections, for example, different kinds of conditionality relations between the facts. Similarly, the perception of a sequence of speech acts is based on the interpretation of the relationship between the successive speech acts.
Ferreira offered his variant of interpretation of connection between a combination of simple speech acts following each other. He distinguishes the following types of functional relations between speech acts: justificatory relation, expansion relation, explanatory relation, repetition, commentary relation, correction, addition, agreement, approval, objection, conclusion, conclusion, etc.⁵³ The speech acts that make up a sequence need not be of the same «level». Studying complex speech acts, i.e., non-minimal units of speech representing a combination of simple speech acts as minimal speech units, V. I. Karaban came to the conclusion that subordination relations can be found between speech acts, for example, when one speech act is auxiliary to another. The scholar’s research has shown that illocutionary goals play an important role in the construction of a sequence of speech acts, the coherence of which ensures that speech acts are related in the sequence. As it turned out, at the level of illocutionary purposes between simple speech acts, in addition to the relationship of subordination, there can be discursive relations of two other types: coordination and facilitation. The latter type of relation represents the most general case, defined by «the presence of a motive in the activity as stimulating and determining the choice of orientation of the object / material or ideal / for the sake of which this activity is carried out». According to A.M.Kaplunenko, the reference to the subject of the activity gives the above definition a certain heaviness, therefore it is more appropriate to use, as the scientist believes, the concept of priority, i.e. «a value reference point, both encouraging the communicants to start cooperation, and determining the nature of its completion».
Thus, the relation of subordination between speech acts lies in the fact that the implementation of the illocutionary goal of one act (dependent) is subordinated to the implementation of the illocutionary goal of the other (main) act. In the case of identity of the illocutionary goals, the relation of coordination is established between the speech acts. The relation of facilitation between speech acts arises if the realization of the illocutionary goal of one act makes the realization of the illocutionary goal of the other possible. V. I. Karaban also discovered that on the basis of these relations simple illocutionary forces can be combined into complex illocutionary forces of three types: complex, composite and compound. The existence of these illocutions is due, on the one hand, to the needs of expressing composite propositional content and, on the other hand, to the communicant’s desire to ensure a greater probability of achieving a specific perlocutionary goal. In accordance with the developed classification of illocutionary forces V. I. Karaban made a structural classification of complex speech acts. From the point of view of the internal structure defined by the type of the discourse act (the act of linking of simple speech acts) and the types of component speech acts - functions, the complex speech acts are divided into three types: complex, composite and composite.
A complex speech act is a type of complex speech act in which the components, being in a subordinate relation, represent respectively the main and auxiliary speech acts. For example, in the example below, the implementation of the assertive illocutionary purpose is subordinated to the implementation of the directive illocutionary purpose, which is reinforced by the FI like hell: «Turn the car quickly, dear, and drive like hell, I don’t want to see you go».
A composite speech act is understood by V. I. Karaban as a type of complex speech act in which the components are in coordinative relations and represent coordinated speech acts. For example:
My heart was beating like mad. I could scarcely speak.
A compound speech act can be defined as such a complex speech act in which a contributing relationship is observed between the components and these components are contributing and contributing speech acts respectively.
The coordination of the relations between illocutionary acts established by A.Ferreira and V.I. Karaban at the local level is promoted by illocutionary coherence, as formal explication of which A.N. Baranov and G.E. Kreidlin propose the concepts of illocutionary compulsion and illocutionary self-exertion. Studying speech interactions in the structure of dialog, they come to the conclusion that «illocutionary compulsion is one of the manifestations of the laws of coupling acting on the space of dialog».
So, speech acts, connected in some speech context by the relation of illocutionary compulsion, we, following Baranov A.N. and Kreidlin G.E., will call, respectively, illocutionally independent and illocutionally dependent. In other words, «an illocutionally independent speech act is a speech act whose illocutionary purpose is determined exclusively by the speaker’s own intentions, and an illocutionary dependent RA is a speech act whose illocutionary purpose is determined entirely by the illocutionary purpose of any preceding line». The connection between independent and dependent speech acts and the peculiarities of its manifestation are determined by a variety of factors. First of all, these are the constructive characteristics of the dialogue. Thus, at the local level, illocutionary coherence is created by pragmatic relations between illocutionary acts at the level of illocutionary purposes. Finally, the sequence of speech acts can also be analyzed at the global level. In this case it is considered as a single whole - as one global speech act or macro speech act. The sequence of macro speech acts form a pragmatic macrostructure. As an example of a pragmatic macrostructure, here is a sequence of directive statements, which, taken in the unity of all its parts, acts as an instruction in the conversation below.
«Now, go home, take a drink, tell your wife about the raise, and go to bed. Then tomorrow, come in here and let me know how soon we can get the lab cleaned out so that the overflow from the accounting department can get in there. We’re tight as hell for space. Come over here, you; shake hands and forget everything we’ve said and thought about each other.
In relation to the private speech acts that make up the sequence, such a pragmatic macrostructure is possible due to «reduction»: it defines the «result» of a statement in terms of a common intention or purpose. Consequently, specific speech acts can either be relatively «independent» units of communication, or be seen as components or elements of sequences that form a global speech act.
If illocutionary coherence ensures the unity of the author’s intention and the sequence of speech acts, then the discourse’s intensional coherence ensures the unity of the speaker’s intentional state and his intention to express this intentional state by means of speech acts.
At the same time, intensional states are connected not only with speech acts, but also with each other. J. Searle came to an interesting conclusion in this regard. In elaborating on the conditions for the feasibility of intentional states, he makes two assertions. First, «Intentional states, in general, are elements of a network of intensional states» and second, «An intensional state determines its feasibility conditions only when its position in the network of other intensional states is given» (op. cit.:20). According to these assertions, the discourse of FI functioning is a network of interrelated intensional states.
Thus, having outlined the theoretical basis for the study of the pragmatic and communicative parameters of FI and using the main theoretical concepts: T. van Dijk’s discourse analysis (local and global discourse coherence, semantic and pragmatic macrostructures), speech act theory, theory of intentional states, argumentation theory, we will analyze locally and globally connected fragments of discourse and try to determine the laws of FI functioning in discourse and the role of FI and the degree of its participation in providing pragmatic.