Yulia Kachurovska
Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University
Scientific Supervisor: I.E. Grachova, PhD
PRAGMATIC ASPECT OF THE EXPRESSION OF
THE CATEGORY OF NEGATION
The study of the category of negation in English is relevant because a clear understanding of the functions and proper use of forms of negation are important for effective verbal communication. The concept of the category of negation is closely related to the semantic meaning of the statement, ie with the concept of the category of logic, with formal-logical and linguistic negation. In addition to the lexical-grammatical and logical meaning of the category of negation, the pragmatic aspect is also taken into account.
The negation in English in the analytical form of the verb is directly related to the concept of predicativity and modality, which reflects the attitude of the speaker to reality, so from this point of view the meaning cannot be understood and explained without context. Pragmatics studies the meaning-intention of the participants in the interaction, when the moment of interaction of the speaker and listener is emphasized. The meaning of the speaker is the central concept of pragmatics and presupposes a view of human communication that focuses on intention and intent. It should be emphasized that it is the intention of the speaker to determine the pragmatic function of the speech act. In this case, the function of the linguistic act represented by a single utterance is quite difficult to determine, as there may be a direct correspondence between the form of utterance and its function. Only when considering a holistic linguistic event, which is a sequence consisting of two or more linguistic acts, a full analysis of a particular single linguistic act and its pragmatic function is possible.
Language acts that precede the act of objection (disagreement, refusal) often perform the functions of council, invitation, proposal, approval (expression of a certain opinion). Yes, refusing to take advice is usually accompanied by arguments, explanations of the inability or unwillingness to follow the advice offered, for example: Why don’t you got the party? – But I don’t know any one there. What do you think of situation, are you afraid? – No. I think we are over the worst now. It should be noted that a negative reaction to the advice does not involve the use of semantic formulas of pity, gratitude, apology. In addition, sometimes it is possible to offer counter-advice, for example:
Why don’t we go and visit him? – I don’t know. We had better go home.
Thus, disagreement/refusal can be expressed with arguments and not with arguments, and a counter-question can also be used. In addition, the verbal act of negation is characterized by such a pragmatic characteristic as the clarity / indirectness of the statement. The use of a certain degree of clarity / indirectness in the linguistic act of disagreement / refusal is influenced by socio-pragmatic factors, universal for any culture, as well as the implementation of specific pragmatic tasks. The first include: the relative power of the speaker over the listener, social distance, assessment of the significance of the speech act. The second is to draw attention to the explanation of the reasons for refusal or, conversely, to try to avoid explaining the details of the negative reaction, the categoricalness or softness of the refusal. These factors influence the choice of lexical and grammatical elements in the construction of both explicit and indirect utterances [1].
The means of expressing explicit refusal include: the functional word no; stable phrases not at all, not quite; not in the least, not a bit; verbs expressing disagreement, doubt, uncertainty: refuse, disagree, not agree, protest, not be sure, etc. – I don’t agree with it. It’s not a good idea. Means of expressing indirect refusal are represented by such improperly negative structures.
For example, a replica-repetition: Then whose blanket is that? – Blanket?- Yes, ma’am, blanket. It is not ours.
Another means of expressing indirect refusal is through rhetorical questioning.
For example: And you really do think it was there? – Why should I say rightly that it was there?
Choosing the necessary form of disagreement / refusal allows to speak adequately to express the meaning of the statement, and at the same time to convey additional pragmatic, expressive and other connotations.
As noted, the negation of English in the analytical form of the verb directly with the concept of predicativity and modality. Negation directly and directly connects subjective modality (expressed lexically and lexico-phraseologically) and objective modality (expressed syntactically), which together reflects the attitude of the speaker to reality, the attitude of the speaker to the event and his assessment, the attitude speaks to the point of view emotional-expressive-evaluative connotations and cannot be understood and explained without context.
For example, in the linguistic concept of “semantic primitives” A. Vezhbytska negation is interpreted as a real positive element of the deep structure of the sentence with the expression of a subjective-volitional, modal primitive. This can be seen in the following example: She mustn’t persuade him. This sentence is understood: there is no need to convince her, and she probably will not do it. In case of denial, it is perceived as a positive act of human will. We shouldn’t walk about in it. Look, every step you take’s wasting it. Atticus looked at me over his glasses. “You don’t have to go with Jem, you know.” In these examples, the author also shows the absence of the need for action, expressed by a modal verb and a negative particle. The attitude of the speaker to the statement and the interlocutor, as well as the reason for the lack of necessity, we can understand, given the context [2].
Thus, the pragmatic aspect plays a significant role in the study of the category of negation. The most important pragmatic concepts are: the meaning of the speaker, pragmatic functions of speech, clarity/indirectness, which mainly focus on the intentions of communicators in the communication process.
ЛІТЕРАТУРА
- Komarovskaya S.D. Modern English grammar. Practical course. Textbook of English grammar. 2nd ed., Corrected. М., 2000. 160 p.
- Kossman L.V. Practical grammar of the English language.S.- Pb .: SILEKS, 1992. 134 p.