FACTORS SHAPING THE PRAGMATIC MEANING OF INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES

Аннотация

In linguistics, there are numerous theoretical perspectives aimed at determining the nature of the sentence phenomenon and its status within language and speech systems. Moreover, the definitions given to the concept of "sentence" are innumerable. This is because each linguist sets a specific task when selecting a sentence as an object of research or referring to this concept in the analysis of other linguistic units. This, in turn, further attests to the fact that a sentence is a multi-layered, multifaceted, and extremely complex linguistic object. Consequently, from the multitude of existing definitions and descriptions, it becomes evident that a sentence, as a linguistic unit, has a certain structure related to each of its individual characteristics. A sentence, as an element of speech, possesses two high-level categories of abstraction: intention (speech purpose)and predicativity. Keywords: Sentence, semantic-syntactic structures, speech structure, pragmatics, interrogative sentences, presupposition. The tradition of pragmatic study of linguistic units can actually be traced back to the idea of the dialectical unity of language and speech phenomena, which has been dominant since the time of Ferdinand de Saussure. In the field of linguistics during the last century, researchers primarily focused on studying the phenomena of language systems and their systemic-structural relationships. However, for the comprehensive development of theoretical linguistics, it is essential to encompass speech activity as well. Indeed, it is through this activity that the functions performed by language are fully manifested, and its nature and existence are fully revealed in the speech process. Psycholinguists define speech activity as purposeful action carried out using linguistic means (see: Pishalnikova 2017: 122-127). As is known, V. Humboldt, one of the founders of theoretical linguistics, was among the first to introduce the concept of "activity" into linguistics. Elaborating on the idea that "language is not a product of activity (Ergon), but activity itself (Energia)," the German scholar wrote: "If we take this definition, it is applicable to any speech activity, but strictly speaking, the totality of all speech acts constitutes language" (Humboldt 1984: 70). Indeed, participants in communication perform various purposeful actions during the process of speech activity. The speech act performed for a specific purpose is based on the sentence, which is the main unit of the syntactic level, and through it, a thought is formed, expressed, and communicated (Sayfullayeva et al. 2010: 313; Yusupov 2011: 213). As mentioned above, the sentence as a communicative unit constitutes the object of research in the pragmatic and communicative directions of linguistics. These areas characterize the intended use and purpose of language units and grammatical forms, as well as their activation in specific https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi volume 4,issue5,2025 462 communicative situations, the structure of speech acts, and communicative intentions in interconnected states. Ch. Fillmore, who wrote about the importance of tasks related to determining sentence content for the development of theoretical linguistics, notes that in any complete description of language, itis necessary torefer to thefacts ofpresupposition (Fillmore 1987). Studying the content structure of a sentence based on its presuppositions goes beyond the scope of linguistics to a certain extent, since presupposition is a supra-syntactic category. Moreover, the nature of presupposition is understood differently. This, of course, leads to varying opinions regarding the classification of presuppositions and their application. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that the idea of presupposition theory aims at a deep understanding of sentence content and explaining its manifestation in text. Therefore, special dictionaries note that presupposition expresses the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic phenomena in the structureof speech acts (Allort 2010; Crystal 2008; Safarov 2013). In interpreting the structural-semantic features of a sentence, its paradigm is also taken into account. O.E. Moskalskaya, in her well-known monograph "Problems of Systemic Description of Syntax," notes that the sentence paradigm is based on three oppositions. These are: 1) declarative: interrogative: imperative; 2) modality ofreality: modalityof unreality; 3)affirmation: negation (Moskalskaya 1975). As can be seen, the first two types of opposition differ somewhat from the third type. While the declarative: interrogative: imperative opposition corresponds to the distribution of traditional sentence communication types, the modality of unreality: modality of reality, as well as oppositions in the form of affirmation: negation, are included in the category of predicativity (in thebroadsense ofthis term). The meaning of predicativity, as a category belonging to the sentence level, is