Linguopragmatic aspects of fictional texts in English and Karakalpak languages

1.2. Pragmatic aspects of text analysis 
The term “pragmatics” (from the Greek. Πρ’αγμα — “business”, “action”) was 
introduced into scientific use by one of the founders of semiotics — the general 
theory of signs — Ch.W.Morris. Following the ideas of Ch.Pierce, Morris divided 
semiotics into semantics — the doctrine of the relationship of signs to objects 
of reality, syntactics — the doctrine of the relationship between signs and 
pragmatics — the doctrine of the relationship of signs to their interpreters, 
i.e. to those who use language systems. Pragmatics, therefore, studies the behavior 
of signs in real communication processes. “Since most (and perhaps all) signs are 
interpreted by living organisms,” wrote Ch. Morris — “a sufficient characteristic 
of pragmatics would be to indicate that it deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, 
in other words, with all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena 
that are observed in the functioning of signs” [34, 201]. Pragmatics is focused 

---

on the study of “semantics of language in action”. [28, p. 231] -language in the 
aspect of the conditions of its use, language in relation to the speaker and the 
listener, the speech situation uniting them, their background knowledge, 
etc.“Linguistic meanings are pragmatic in principle: with a person, with a speech 
situation in the language are associated not some specially distinguished expressive 
elements, but generally the meanings of the vast majority of words and 
grammatical units” [34, p. 222]. 
Starting from the middle of the 20th century, the man with all his psychological 
complexes became the organizing center of the “semantic space”. Therefore, they 
began to believe that words connecting the meaning of the sentence with the 
speaker possessed a subtle contextual sensitivity. The concept of the subject 
of speech combined perhaps the largest complex of pragmatically relevant issues. 
It was the appeal to the author of the statement that marked the transition from 
analysis of the stable meaning of the word to the consideration of the variable 
content of the statement. The focus on a particular material affected the concept 
of meaning itself: meaning linked itself to use. Owing to this, the meaning of the 
utterance began to be considered inseparable from the pragmatic situation, and the 
meaning of many words began to be determined through an indication of the 
communicative goals of the speech act: “Pragmatics is precisely that section 
of linguistic theory that broadly, persistently, and consistently explicates the 
communicative side of linguistic functioning and use. This is the human factor 
in language” [31, p. 19]. 
Speaking about the connection of the pragmatic component of linguistic 
meanings with the human factor, we can give a fairly simple example, which 
R.S.Stolnaker uses in his article: "The hero of L. Carroll’s book “Alice through the 
Looking Glass” Humpty Dumpty told the main character: “When I use the word, 
it means exactly what I want to say, so that it does not mean — neither more nor 
less.” — “The question is, Alice objected, ‘can you make a word mean so many 
different things.’” “The question is,” Humpty Dumpty answered, “who is the 
master is all.” This very expressive example graphically illustrates that aspect 

---

of the language that is closely related to the human factor, namely the dependence 
of the use of language units on the goals of the senders of the text: “Pragmatics 
is a science that studies the language in its relation to those who use it, it studies 
speech acts and the contexts in which they are realized”. Pragmatics considers 
language primarily in the communicative aspect, i.e. in connection with the 
speaker, the subject, his addressee, goals and conditions of communication. 
Currently, there are many definitions of the term “pragmatics”, but they all boil 
down to the fact that pragmatics is an aspect of language learning that identifies 
and examines language units in relation to the person who create, accept and 
understand them. Pragmatics is associated with the study of the category of utility, 
value, clarity of a sign, as well as with the study of semantic information, where 
the question of evaluating the information extracted by a given addressee from 
a text plays a significant role. Such an interpretation of the object of pragmatics 
is confirmed in its basic definitions in linguistic literature. 
Many scientists believe that pragmatics occupies a place above linguistics. 
Language exists as a system, and pragmatics studies how this system is used. 
Semantic meanings are considered from the point of view of a certain speech 
situation and necessarily consider the participants in the communication process. 
Thus, J. Leach defines pragmatics as “the study of meaning in relation to the 
situation of speech” [28]. This author also emphasizes the idea that the subject 
of pragmatic research is both the process of generating a speech act, and the 
process of perception and understanding of this act. 
G.G.Matveeva believes that the pragmatics of the text should be understood 
as “the aspect of the functioning of language units, the choice of which 
is determined by the intentional influencing tasks of the sender of the text, taking 
into account the situational conditions of the act of communication and the 
normative ways of using the language adopted in this functional style”[30, 91]. 
Despite the fact that initially pragmatist and its component — the theory 
of speech acts by J.Austin and R.Serl — were intended to study the “everyday 
language”, the principles of oral communication and lively conversational 

---

communication, the belief has recently been formed that the pragmatic aspect 
highly fruitful in the study of literary text. Many scientists write about the infinity 
of possibilities and prospects inherent in the word, noting, in particular, the 
possibility of incrementing new elements to the meaning of the word in the text: 
“In the minds of native speakers, different variants of one word are connected 
by many associations, in fiction this wealth of associations gives particular 
expressiveness and suggestiveness”[ 43,251]. 
Summing up the above, we can conclude that the study of a literary text from 
the point of view of pragmatics is one of the urgent areas of modern linguistics, 
because opens up inexhaustible opportunities for comprehending the totality 
of linguistic tools that operate at the text level and aimed to the reader. 
Cognitive stylistics can be said to have evolved from literary stylistics. Literary 
stylistics is the systematic study of literary language of literary style. The main 
difference between mainstream literary stylistics and cognitive stylistics is that the 
former focuses almost exclusively on language, style and other formal linguistic 
aspects of processing, the latter expands on these “bottom up” processing features, 
and also considers the cognitive, affective and mnemonic aspects of “top down” 
processing. This addition is something that literary stylistics had not previously 
dealt with any systematic or meaningful way. In hindsight therefore it can indeed 
be said that literary stylistics with its bottom-up input, was crucial to the way 
cognitive stylistics developed, and indeed to how it is still developing now [12,95]. 
Such approach gives the possibility for construction of strategy of perception of the 
text, caused by the ability of the addressee to find "signals", "indicators", “key 
sign”, “semantic block” significant for the conceptual information [9,14]. In 
stylistics such "signals", "indicators" etc. are represented by stylistically marked 
units, set of conceptual senses, which compose the general conceptual sense of the 
literary text as a whole. In this connection in the frameworks of Cognitive 
Stylistics the problem of conceptualization of stylistic phenomena that is revealing 
of their conceptual senses, on the basis of integrated use of linguistic and 
encyclopedic structures of knowledge and positions of the conceptual analysis of 

---

language is allocated. L.G. Luzina points and believes that the relationship 
between cognitive linguistics and cognitive stylistics is" in the direction of 
cognitive stylistics in the most general form can be represented as combining two 
types of research: 1) research, developing the theory of general stylistics based on 
cognitive linguistics; 2) studies that provide cognitive reasoning techniques and 
stylistic constructions, expressive means of the language traditionally associated 
with the field of style". L.G.Luzina also draws attention to the fact that "the 
rationale for cognitive stylistics fundamental concepts of great importance is the 
fact that these concepts have been involved in the consideration of issues that are 
important for cognitive linguistics (understanding and interpretation of the text, 
intention and purpose of speaking / writing , the choice of language expression , 
encoding and decoding stylistic information, etc.)[43 p.208]. G.G. Molchanova 
also notes the effectiveness of the ideas and principles of cognitive linguistics to 
explore the stylistic nature of language, as "" Art "or" literary "or" rhetorical 
"aspects of language, such as metaphor, metonymy, personification, allusion, 
antonomation , etc. are central, rather than marginal, applied in studying the 
processes of cognition" [38p.33]. Foundation of cognitive stylistics are both 
psychological research and studies in the field of cognitive linguistics [Johnson, 
1987; Roche , 1973; Lakoff , 1993; Turner , 1996]. The results of these studies led 
to the conclusion that the value is not in the language, but rather opens with it. 
Language - a product rather than a separate structural system in the human mind, 
and general cognitive processes to conceptualize human consciousness experience 
called in cognitive linguistics included processes or (in these processes) and 
understanding or (embodied understanding). Origins of cognitive style to a certain 
extent related to the release of the book and George Lakoff and M.Johnson 
«Metaphors We Live by»[36], in which a theory of metaphor to explore the 
cognitive point of view. This work aroused great interest among researchers of 
humanities and served as the beginning for further consideration trails and overall 
stylistic phenomena in a completely new research perspective. M. Freeman defines 
cognitive stylistics as a special theory as “a powerful tool explicitating our 

---

reasoning processes, revealing the structure and content of literary texts” [18,43] 
pointed out by scientists standing at the origins of this new discipline, E. Semino 
and J. Culpeper" cognitive stylistics combines clear, precise and detailed linguistic 
analysis of literary texts , characteristic style, with a system based on theoretical 
knowledge , taking into account the cognitive structures and processes which 
determine the similarity of language and perception. By definition of 
K.A.Andreeva, cognitive style connects the processes of creation and analysis of 
literary texts with general cognitive mechanisms of human consciousness [7,99]. 
Cognitive stylistics so closely associated with reading (interpretation), and 
especially with the perception and interpretation process. As pointed out by D.U. 
Ashurova modern stylistic theory based on the guiding principles of modern 
linguistics (integral, interdisciplinary) which is characterized by: a) new 
approaches to push the issue; b) the interpenetration and mutual enrichment of 
some concepts, regulations, terms of the different fields of knowledge; c) 
reorientation of scientific views on traditional ideas; g) the introduction and 
development of new methods of investigation "[9]. This opinion is also shared by 
N.M. Djusupov who believes that cognitive stylistics - is "one of the stages of 
development of all stylistics. It complements the traditional stylistics and 
achievement is a testament to the fact that language learning should not be limited 
to the extent of linguistics, and can be performed in an expanded perspective, 
involving data from other related sciences. The science of language today is 
experiencing a period when certain propositions are not sufficient to solve many 
problems and challenges. So needless time and circumstances of scientific thought 
require new approaches that involve integrated consideration of language, 
highlighting the role of the human factor [22,34]. In this paper, P. Simpson,
cognitive style is considered as one of the formed areas of modern style. A key 
factor distinguishing the cognitive model of style from others, recognized that the 
main focus (within the cognitive model) is placed on mental representations rather 
than textual [45 p.92]. As noted in the article by N.M. Djusupov, "Cognitive 
Stylistics: current status and important issues of research", cognitive stylistic 

---

research directly related problems as follows: a) the selection and organization of 
information (linguistic and extralinguistic) in the text; b) cognitive interpretation of 
stylistic devices and textual categories; c) the study of the cognitive processes of 
perception, understanding and interpretation of the text; d) introduction Lingvo 
Cognitive methods and techniques of research in the process of stylistic analysis 
[22].As Semino and Culpeper point out in the introduction of their edited 
collection, Cognitive Stylistics, there may be a difference in opinion between those 
in North America who see cognitive psychology but another version of cognitive 
linguistics is those in Europe who may see it as a form of cognitive stylistics. To 
illustrate, near in the very commence of their book as Semino and Culpeper wrote: 
This collection aims to represent the state of the art in cognitive stylistics – a 
rapidly expanding field at the interface between linguistics, literary studies and 
cognitive science. 
The main task of the dissertation paper is to investigate linguopragmatic 
approach to text analysis in English and Karakalpak languages. We start our 
analysis with the investigation approaches to text analysis in Modern English. 
Some scientists points of views are the following: 
Wetherell presents four possible approaches to the study of the text as a 
discourse: firstly, the study of the language as a system. The aim of this approach 
would be the finding of the patterns in the discourse. Secondly, the language in use 
as an activity, so the purpose would be the analysis of the interaction between the 
different elements. Thirdly, the study of the language patterns associated with a 
given topic or activity. In this case, we are dealing with the English for Specific 
Purposes where texts are studied within a genre. And fourthly, the pattern study 
within broader contexts, such as society or culture. Based on this, the main schools 
created for the academic study of these /4/ fields are:[58,192] 
1. Pragmatics. Analytical approach which involves contextual considerations.

---

2. Interactional Sociolinguistics. The object of study is the interactive construction 
and organization of discourse describing it as social interaction. Verbal and 
nonverbal inputs are considered. 
3. Conversational Analysis. Dialogues as they are expressed reveal the 
conventions in a specific social group. Another example is drama texts as sample 
for the analysis of the author’s style. 
4. The Ethnography of Communication. Analysis of language in use in its cultural 
setting. 
5. Sociolinguistic Variation Analysis. The study of the way language varies in 
communities of speakers. This concentrates in particular on the interaction of 
social factors (such as a speaker’s gender, ethnicity, age, degree of integration into 
their community, etc.) and linguistic structures (such as sounds, syntactic forms, 
intonation features, words, etc.).
6. Functional Sentence Perspective bases the research on the sentence structure but 
with a communicative purpose. 7. Post-Structuralist Theory and Social Theory. 
They support the idea that theory and reality cannot be separated. Herein the need 
to study the texts in context even though the reality as we perceive it is relative.
8. Critical Discourse Analysis. They analyze the implicit content in a text in order 
to define an overview of the approaches and methods for analysing a text from a 
discursive viewpoint the ideological bias. They consider that ideologies are 
generally implicit assumptions. 
9. Mediated Discourse Analysis takes discourse and human action in social change 
in real time as the basis of the study. [58,206] 
The definition of pragmatics can lead us to conclude that there is not much 
difference between pragmatics and discourse analysis. Actually, doing discourse 
analysis primarily consists of doing pragmatics. The difference could be 
established in that discourse analysis is a natural consequence of pragmatics. While 
pragmatics deals with context, discourse analysis, on the other hand, goes into 

---

depths in terms of reference, presupposition, implicature and inference. In a way, 
this prefers to focus on the relationship between speaker and hearer and on the 
intertextuality rather than the relationship that exists between one sentence or 
proposition and another. “Intertextuality” is a concept related to Discourse 
Analysis coined by Kristeva. It is based on the idea that texts are not independent 
elements but that all of them have influences from and on others. She distinguishes 
between “horizontal” and “vertical” intertextuality to distinguish the texts that 
build on other texts related sequentially (influences) and on other texts that share 
the same category (e-mails). Finally and as stated above, context is common in 
Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. Discourse will never take texts in isolation but 
within a context, a background, circumstances that will be taken into consideration 
giving them the same importance as text itself, but, according to the purpose for 
the context analysis, different schools have been created.
In the next chapter of our work we’ll study linguopragmatic approach to text 
analysis in modern linguistics