Semantic and Pragmatic Presuppositions in Postmodern Text

Liudmyla Harmash, Natalia Khalanska, Svitlana Melnyk, Olena Nevelska-Hordieieva, Iryna Razumenko

Özet


The article suggests the analysis of literary texts based on the linguistic theory of presuppositions, which is considered to be one of the possible promising approaches to interpreting implicit levels of literary text. The use of this approach is expected to be effective at various communication levels: character-character, narrator-reader, author-reader. The authors use the method of discourse analysis to study the different types of presuppositions and their functioning not only within isolated abstract expressions, but as a part of a broad cultural context. Linguistic methods are combined with a philological method of text interpretation and an intertextual approach, of being subject to consider a random expression in the context of the literary work as a whole. The analysis of presuppositions specificity in the text and the ways of its explication are based on the theory of presuppositions. The methodology of the analysis focuses on identifying presuppositions to establish dominant semantic categories and systemic interaction between them, constituting the artistic picture of the world in Pelevin’s story as a postmodern writing code. Study of the text the presuppositions level helps to clarify the architectonics of the postmodern literary text and to define the ideological constants forming the semantic field of comprehension. The main positions in Pelevin's work are occupied by such semantic categories as ‘cosmology’, ‘religion’, ‘society’, ‘science’, ‘art’, etc. Their analysis allowed to formulate a meta-subject of postmodern text, which can be defined as ‘rite de passage’. Pelevin's story is viewed in the context of the dialogue between modernism realized the exhaustion of modern culture, and postmodernism accepted this situation as a given and played the fate tragedy as satyr drama in the best traditions of the ancient theatre: where the modernist hero dies, the postmodernist marginal is able to overcome an irresistible edge.


Anahtar Kelimeler


Semantic presupposition, pragmatic presupposition, discourse analysis, Victor Pelevin, transgression.

Tam Metin:

PDF (English)

Referanslar


Appel, A. (2017). Remembering Nabokov. Inostrannaya literatura, 6, 257–283.

Arutyunova, N. D. (1985). Istoki, problemyi i kategorii pragmatiki. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike. Lingvisticheskaya pragmatika, 16, 21–38.

Auwera, J. van der. (1979). Pragmatic presupposition: Shared beliefs in a theory of irrefutable meaning. Syntax and Semantics, 11, 249–264.

Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge MA. MIT Press.

Ballmer, T. T. (1982). Biological Foundations of Linguistic Communication: Towards a Biocybernetics of Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iii.7

Beaver, D. I., & Geurts, B. (2014). Presupposition. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition

Chemla, Е., & Bott, L. (2013). Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 38 (3), 241–260.

Dijk, T. A. van. (1981). Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010563

Dinsmore, J. (1981). The Inheritance of Presupposition. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.1

Fillmore, C. (1971). Types of lexical information. In D. D. Steinberg, & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 370-392). Cambridge University Press.

Heim, I. (2002). File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites. In P. Portner & B. H. Partee (Eds.) Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch9

Kevelson, R. (1980). Semiotics and the art of conversation. Semiotica, 32, 53–80.

Kiefer, F. (1973). On Presuppositions. Generative Grammar in Europe. Springer Science & Business Media, 218–242.

Kubryakova, E. S., Demyankov, V. Z., Pankrats, Yu. G., & Luzina, L. G. (1996). A brief dictionary of cognitive terms. Filologicheskiy fakultet MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova.

Lenin, V. I. 1968. Materialism and empirio-criticism. In Lenin, V.I. Omnibus edition, 18. Political Literature Publishing House, 7–384.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Losev, A. F. (2000). The history of ancient aesthetics. Last centuries. Book 2. Izdatelstvo ACT.

Lotman, Yu. M. (1998). About art. Moscow: Iskusstvo.

Makarov, M. L. (2003). Fundamentals of the theory of discourse. ITDGK Gnozis.

Meletinskiy, E. M. (1982). The cultural hero. In S.A. Tokarev (Ed.) Mifyi narodov mira. Entsiklopediya, 2. Publisher Soviet Encyclopedia, 25–28.

Paducheva, E. V. (2013). Russian negative sentence. Yazyiki slavyanskoy kultury.

Paducheva, E. V. (1985). The statement and its correlation with reality (referential aspects of the semantics of pronouns). Moscow: Nauka.

Pelevin, V. (1997). Hermit and Six-Toes. In Pelevin V. Sochineniya, 2. TERRA, 159-194.

Radbil, T. B. (2001). Linguistic pragmatics and the problem of understanding the text (about one story by Victor Pelevin Principles and research methods in philology: the end of the 20th century. Collection of articles of the scientific and methodological seminar. TEXTUS. SPb.-Stavropol: Izd-vo StGU, 6, 307–311.

Sperber, D., & Wilson D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In N. V. Smith (Ed.) Mutual Knowledge. London: Academic Press, 61–131.

Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Ed.) Semantics of Natural Language. 380–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_11

Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.) Semantics and Philosophy. New York University Press. 197–214.

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–322.

Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.

Werth, P. (1984). Focus, Coherence and Emphasis. Croom Helm.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i3.2741

Refback'ler

  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.




Telif Hakkı (c) 2020 Journal of History Culture and Art Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.