Main Article Content
Introduction. Proverbs as linguistic symbols, which have a special corelation between of content and form, are characterized by a specific pragmatics, which implies an expression of an intentional strategy of an influence of a generalized, collective addresser on a collective, hypothetical addressee.
Purpose. The purpose of this article is to describe the methodology of the pragmatic analysis of Ukrainian proverbs.
Methods. The method of pragmatic analysis of proverbs incorporates studies of psycho-, ethno-, sociolinguistics, linguistics of the text, linguosemiotics, linguoculture etc., with a purpose of describing speech acts. The essence of pragmatic analysis is to study human communication dimensions as well as its connections with the language structures. The purpose of the pragmatic analysis in the research – describtion of the proverb features as the speech acts of the Ukrainian language.
Results. Proverbs are fixed linguistic symbols reproduced by the speaker, which are characterized by a communicative purpose, given by the collective addressee – by a folk. They are purposeful speech actions, speech acts of which prompt to study the peculiarities of their pragmatics. The presence of independent illocutions forces in proverbs transforms them into speech acts, which is also the evidence of the discursive nature of the proverbial semiosis.
Originality. The proposed method of pragmatic analysis of proverbs involves several stages. The first stage is the installation of illocations of the proverb. Depending on the intention, proverb statements can gain semantic status of affirmation, ascertaining, promise, warning, threat, order, requirement, advice, etc. The second stage involves a description of the locutionary implemented through the performance of three actions: combination of phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts. The performance of the sound structure of the paronymous utterance is reproducing during the phonetic act, lexico-grammatical structure of the paramyal statement is involved in the process of the phatic act, and meaning and a reference correlation – in the rhetic act. The third stage is an establishment of the perlocative effect of the proverb. First of all, it is used a depicted communication (the term I. Arnold). The perlocution of the proverbial utterance is directed by the external effects of the speech act, which are represented primarily in the response of the addressee. It is in the specific conditions of performance that the illocution of the proverb appears as a result of locution, as an argument and perlocution, which, by employing semantics, is oriented on the result of communication. The fourth stage of the pragmatic analysis is the clarification whether a direct or indirect speech act is performed by a proverb.
Conclusion. The pragmatic analysis of the proverbs makes it possible to describe proverbs as speech acts that reflect the specifics of the ethnocommunication, to interpret their illocution, depending on a situation.
Selivanova, O. О. (2010). Linguistic encyclopaedia. Poltava: Dovkillja-K. (in Ukr.)
Poluzhin, M. M. (2003). Types and units of pragmatic analysis of speech communication. Problems of Romano-Germanic Philology. (Problemy romano-hermansʹkoyi filolohiyi). Uzhgorod: Patent. 6–20. (in Ukr.)
Karaban, V. I. (1989). Complex speech units (pragmatics of English asyndetic polypredicative utterances). Kiev: High School (in Russ.)
Formanovskaya, N. I. (1998). Communicative and pragmatic aspects of communication units. Moscow: ICAR (in Russ.)
Minkin, L. M (1998). Aspects of the synthesized theory of pragmatics. Bulletin of the Kyiv linguistic University. Philology. (Visnyk Kyyivsʹkoho linhvistychnoho universytetu. Filolohichna). 1. 1, 20–24. (in Russ.)
Minkin, L. M. (1999). Language and speech aspects of the theory of pragmatics. Bulletin of the Kyiv linguistic University. Philology. (Visnyk Kyyivsʹkoho linhvistychnoho universytetu. Filolohichna). 2. 1, 6–11. (in Russ.)
Aristov, S. A. & Susov, I. P. (1999). Communicative-cognitive linguistics and colloquial discourse. Linguistic herald. (Lingvisticheskiy vestnik). Izhevsk:Santa Lingua. 3–15. (in Russ.)
Batsevich, F. S. (2004). Basics of communicative linguistics. Kyiv: Academy (in Ukr.)
Searle, J. (1999) What is a speech act. In Foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. 2, 217–265. (in Russ.)
Kozhina, M. N. (1998). Speech aspect of language theory. Stylistyka XII. Opole, 7, 5–32. (in Russ.)
Batsevich, F. S. (2003). Essays on communicative linguistics. Lviv: Publishing House of Lviv University I. Franko (in Ukr.)
Discourse as a Cognitive-Communicative Phenomenon (2005). Ed I. S. Shevchenko. Kharkov: Constantа (in Ukr.)
Susov, I. P. (1984). Communicative-pragmatic linguistics and its units. In Pragmatics and semantics of syntactic units. Kalinin. 3–12. (in Russ.)
Stronson, P. F. (1986). Intention and convention in speech acts. In New in foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. Issue 17: Theory of speech acts. 131–150. (in Russ.)
Selivanova, O. O. (2011). Fundamentals of the theory of linguistic communication. Cherkasy: Publishing house Chabanenko Yu.A. (in Ukr.)
Austin, J. L. (1986). Word as an action. In New in foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. Issue 17: Theory of speech acts. 22–129. (in Russ.)
Demyankov, V. Z. (1995). Dominant linguistic theories at the end of the 20th century. In Language and science of the late 20th century. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. 239–320. (in Russ.)
Wendler, Z. (1985). Illocutive suicide. In New in foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. Issue 16: Linguistic Pragmatics. 238–251. (in Russ.)
Dake, T. van. (1978). Questions pragmatics text. In New in foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. Issue: 8. Text linguistics. 259–336. (in Russ.)
Kobozeva, I. M. (2000). Linguistic semantics. Moscow: Editorial URSS (in Russ.)
Arutyunova, N. D. (1992). The language of the goal. In Logical analysis: action models. Moscow: Science. 14–23. (in Russ.)
Kubryakova, E. S. (1986). Nominative aspect of speech activity. Moscow: Science (in Russ.)
Searle, J. (1986). Indirect speech acts. In New in foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. Issue 17: Theory of Speech Acts. 195–222. (in Russ.)
Frank, D. (1999). Seven sins of pragmatics: Theses on the theory of speech acts, the analysis of speech communication, linguistics and rhetoric. In Foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress. 2, 254–264. (in Russ.)
Selivanova, O. O. (2018). Problems of meaning in linguistics. Visnyk Cherkaskoho universytetu (Bulletin of the University of Cherkasy), 2, 3–11. doi: 10.31651/2076-5770-2018-2 (in Ukr.)
Arutyunova, N. D. (1981). The addressee factor. News of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ser. literature and language. (Izvestiya AN SSSR. Ser. literatury i yazyka). 4, 356–367. (in Russ.)
Selivanova, O. (2010). Phenomenon of ethnic identity in ethnology and ethnic linguistics. Scientific messages of Tavricheskiy National University. Scientific Journal. Philology and social communications. Simpheropol. 23 (62), 4. (In Ukr.)
Selivanova, O. (2009). Phenomenon of precedence in the processes of nomination. Scientific messages of Tavricheskiy National University. Scientific Journal. Philology and social communications. Simpheropol. 22 (61), 2. (In Ukr.)
Selivanova, O. (2009). Myth as source of nomination. Linguistics and Didactics in the 21st Century − Trends, Analyses and Prognoses II / Ed. by A. Pčolinská. − Prague : Kernberg Publishing. (In Russ.)