Pragmatic possibilities of interrogative sentences in a stable form

Аннотация

It is known that’ the units of the language from the phoneme composition to the text are among the objects of pragmalinguistics. And with the study of the pragmatic nature of the sentence, pragmatic syntax, which carries out a functional approach to the analysis of syntactic phenomena, is involved.In other words, the tasks of pragmatic syntax include the study of the Active features of the speech act of subordinate clauses in its focus, as well as the interaction of the pragmatic and structural-semantic properties of the sentence. It is obvious that the research carried out in modern linguistics is of increasing interest in studying the problems of speech communication. As O.G.Butyaeva, V.A.Zvegintsev describe, “language as a means of communication is how and in what way it communicates, participation in the course of communicative activity and knowledge of the Coordination of language units in the process of this activity in terms of content” [Бутяева, 2002:152-154; Звегинцев, 2007:133-134]. To determine the function of language units in a specific communication situation, and in general the analysis of speech communication from a linguistic point of view is associated with the projection of the direction of pragmalinguistics. In this approach, the linguist is interested, first of all, in the communicative– functional function of speech in the process of speech communication [Почепцов, 1981, 2001: 269]. The study of phraseology is an important part of the knowledge of the language. After all, language learning is not only limited to the acquisition of the ability to form words, but also to know how to use words correctly in speech acts in order to achieve the desired communicative goal. If the purpose of describing sentences in terms of their structure is to illuminate the meaning of their formation’ in the definition of communicative-functional approach, the legislations related to the activity of the sentence in the situation of speech, which is an integral part of the communicative potential of the speaker, are reflected. In addition, the purpose of this approach is an expression from the definition of pragmatic-essence structures as well as the semantic properties of sentences [Почепцов, 1981, 2001: 269]. Thus, the communicative-meaning of the sentence will be two-planned. On the one hand, this is the interrogative, exclamation concepts in the general communicative meaning of the sentence, they are manifested in accordance with the syntactic form of the sentence. On the other hand, the peculiarity of the speech action of the communicative type of speech to be performed is manifested. At the same time, the function of pragmatic syntax also includes the identification of types of speech acts, the designation of their mutual paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Also the pragmatic conditional cases in the structure itself of the sentence also take place within the scope of the object of pragmatic syntax. As researchers study pragmalingvistics issues, they seek to determine the exact boundary between semantics and pragmatics, but there is still no conflicting method of determining this boundary. Even so‘ probably, is an integral part of semantics-pragmatics that is, part of our private knowledge about the general world and how to use language in particular [Levinson, 2013:77], it is not entirely possible to join the assertion. The 17 dependence of semantics on the referent situation and the participants of speech communication is determined by the role of the linguistic sign in the formation of the textual content. Accordingly, pragmatics can also be confused with semantics in some cases. Semantics will be “dependent” on pragmatics when describing the model of the Speech Act aimed at the listener and when the medium of speech activity of the linguistic sign is taken into account [Сафаров, 2008:96]. It is proved that the conjectural basis of linguistic pragmatics is in many respects the theory of speech acts. The emergence and development of this theory J. Austin and C. Searlerelated to names [Austin 1962; Searle, 2012]. The ideas of the English philosopher Vitgenstein served as a methodological basis for the theory of speech acts. The activity carried out by people in concrete social situations Vitgenshteyn interprets the language it as a separate form of social being [Витгенштейн, 1985]. It is known that as a minimum unit of speech communication, a speech act is recognized. Speech act is a means of performing targeted actions in the process of creating speech with the help of language units. Sh.Safarov noted that speech-based act is a linguistic appeal of the speaker to the listener in a certain environment, for a specific purpose, – speech-based act is a “building material” for communication, it does not reflect the logical continuity of the communicative process [Сафаров, 2008:71; 211]. M. Hakimov gives the following definition to the colloquial Act: – the concept of colloquial act-communication betwe