Structural model of dialogue pragmatics based on the "intellect-environment" fractal model. Pragmatics and onomastics: the pragmatic meaning of a proper name

The history of the term "pragmatics" (Greek "pragma" - deed, action) is usually told from Charles Morris, who singled out in semiotics, the theory of sign systems, the field of pragmatics along with the fields of semantics and syntactics. As any science, pragmatics has its own object, subject , subject and research method. The object of research of pragmatics can be a speech act, word, text, or a set of texts. Later, the term "pragmatics" began to be used in linguistics, but did not receive an unambiguous interpretation among linguists.

Pragmatics was understood as the science of the use of language, the science of language in context, or the science of the contextuality of language as a phenomenon, the study of language (or any other communication system) in terms of the goals pursued, the various ways to achieve them and the conditions under which these goals are achieved, the theory of interpretation of speech acts, the study of linguistic means that serve to designate various aspects of the interactional context in which the proposition is expressed. In Russian linguistics, pragmatics is also understood as a theory that studies the pragmatic parameters of literary communication [Arutyunova 1981], as well as the text in its dynamics, correlated with the “I” of the person who creates the text [Stepanov 1981, 1985].

Pragmatics is viewed as "value minus truth condition"; it is the field of study of those aspects of meaning that are not covered by semantic theory. Pragmatics is understood as the theory of speech impact [Kiseleva 1978]. The purpose of pragmatics is seen in the study of language as an instrument of human social practice [Susov 1974].

T. van Dijk believes that the competence of pragmatics includes identifying systems that characterize linguistic form, meaning and activity. According to T. van Dyck, in the most theorized and abstracted understanding, the pragmatist is called upon to carry out the specification of (theoretically permissible) conditions for the (theoretically permissible) suitability of (theoretically permissible) structures of a statement. The empirical tasks of the theory of pragmatics include the development of a cognitive model of production, understanding, memorization of speech acts, as well as a model of communicative interaction and the use of language in specific sociocultural situations.

A serious difficulty lies in the mutual definition of the concepts of pragmatics and semantics. According to G.V. Kolshansky: “... Any speech formation is the result of conceptual processing of any cognitive act, which is inevitable and gives any meaningful statement a cognitive character, usually referred to semantics in the broad sense of the word. In this regard, it is quite understandable that linguists strive not to separate the factor of pragmatic functioning of the language as a whole from its meaningful nature and, thus, to include pragmatics only as a component in the unified semantics of linguistic communicative units ”[Kolshansky 1985: 175].

No matter how varied the options for defining pragmatics are, the main thing in them can be considered the fact that they proceed from the scheme of Charles Morris. One of the properties of a sign is the relationship between the sign and its user - a person. The human factor is recognized as the leading concept of pragmalinguistics [Arutyunova 1981; Bulygina 1981; Hook 1982; Stepanov 1981, 1985 and others]. Pragmatics studies all those conditions under which a person uses linguistic signs. At the same time, the terms of use are understood as the conditions for an adequate choice and use of language units in order to achieve the ultimate goal of communication - to influence a partner.

In modern studies of pragmatics, the subject of activity, which in pragmatics is understood as "an abstract individual (virtual communicant), who is the bearer of a complex of characteristics: psychological, social, geographical, national-cultural, etc." [Bagaturia 2004: 4]. This increasing role of the subject determines the choice of methods for researching the subject of pragmatics. If we consider pragmatics as a science that studies language from the point of view of “the person using it in terms of the choice of linguistic units, restrictions on their use in social communication and the effect of influencing communication participants”, this science should be classified as a practical science based on inductive methods of cognition of reality ...

The activity of transmitting a sign message by a person is studied primarily as a process communications - the entire cycle of scientific disciplines studying communication, and the first difficulties in identifying the actual subject of pragmatics arise precisely in this respect. According to V.G. Kolshansky: “ Pragmatics, as a branch that studies a person's attitude to a linguistic sign, generally loses its meaning for the reason that the relation to a sign cannot be revealed in a language apart from using the language itself, which is, by definition, communication. " (highlighted by us - A.Sh.) [Kolshansky 1985: 131].

Often, pragmatics is defined by focusing on a separate aspect of the communication process, namely, on the impact or communicative impact: “... Regardless of the definition of the pragmatic aspect of language, the leitmotif, as a rule, remains the idea of \u200b\u200binfluencing human behavior with the help of verbal means of speech acts” [ibid: 139]. communicative impact is understood broadly enough. For example, Yu.K. Pirogova singles out "... Influence on consciousness by building rational argumentation (persuasion), or influence on consciousness through the emotional sphere, or influence on the subconscious (suggestion), influence using verbal (speech) or non-verbal means" [Pirogova 2001: 541]. Speech influence in linguistics is studied in connection with the social side of speech communication [Fedorova 1991: 46-50]. In the theory of speech communication, speech communication is presented in the form of a two-level education, including sociological and communicative levels. The content of the communicative level is understood as the exchange of information between interlocutors, and the content of the sociological level implies the social interaction of the participants in the communication, that is, their influence on the behavior, way of thinking and feelings of each other. Speech influence is defined as the speech form of the speaker's social influence on the listener in the process of communication [ibid: 46].

It seems to us that the selection of the subject of pragmatics of the text of the QMS cannot be entirely based on the concept of "impact". A number of QMS materials really have the goal of influencing the knowledge, attitudes and intentions of the addressee, the goal is to achieve the necessary assessment of a certain object for the addressee - for example, in advertising or in an appeal to vote in elections. However, other goals can be found in the texts of the QMS, for example, the leading goal is to “entertain” or captivate the recipient (to attract his attention). In this case, the publication satisfies the subject's mental need for entertainment, stimulating a potential buyer to purchase more and more issues of the publication's entertainment materials. So, in the materials of the "yellow" press in the recipient subject, those states are initiated for which he is ready to pay: fear, surprise, indignation, affection and others. Likewise, fictional and journalistic texts appeal to the “sense of beauty,” the understanding of which, with a sufficient degree of probability, is possessed by the audience of these texts. In such cases, there are about as many reasons to talk about “the impact on the knowledge, attitudes and intentions of the addressee ...” as in the case of a football match broadcast on the QMS channel. Is it possible to find signs of communicative influence in entertaining or artistic and publicistic materials? In a broad sense, it is certainly possible. At the same time, we risk again returning to comprehensive definitions (in this case, the concept of impact) and losing the subject of research, which we need to implement, first of all, methodological tasks. For example, according to G.G. Matveeva: “... Impact, or behavior management, is the goal any (highlighted by us - A.Sh.) communication. Communication is a social orientation in which the adaptive function of a person is realized. It boils down to functional regulatory goals. These goals have a direct and indirect impact. With the latter, control also occurs, for example, when informing, when expressing an assessment, a relationship, on the basis of which a decision on the regulation of behavior can also be made ”[Matveeva 1984: 44].

In our opinion, it is unacceptable to confuse the concepts of impact and pathos of the QMS. As Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky notes: “... The pathos of the mass media is to make messages about events (in principle, not concerning the recipient) interesting for him, so that he becomes spiritually involved in these events. Therefore, mass media selects messages about events and comments on them in such a way that their materials arouse interest. This is accomplished by evoking emotion, curiosity, fear, and compassion. The purpose of the formation of such an emotion is to include the recipient of information in mass actions ”[Rozhdestvensky 1997: 593].

In turn, under the influence “in the direction necessary for the addressee” it is more correct to understand the influence that is built around a specific object of reality. In this case, the addressee achieves a completely definite thought, emotion or line of behavior of the addressee in relation to this object of reality.

Thus, in practice, the concept of communicative influence is more effectively associated with those QMS texts, the content of which is designed to form the recipient's picture of the world, his understanding of reality in relation to the selected object or group of objects. As we will show later, these texts can be grouped according to common goals: they can be aimed at persuasion, motivation or advertising. In these cases (texts), the pragmatics of the QMS text is associated with impact, but as a concept it has its own objective reality. This can be proved, for example, by the pragmatics of the QMS texts with the leading goals of informing or entertaining the audience that do not have a clearly expressed potential for impact.

Consider another possibility in defining the subject of pragmatics. Let's say research pragmatic characteristics of linguistic signsperhaps in the most language system... The natural development of such logic is the selection of a certain linguistic material, language units that have a narrowly pragmatic orientation, as the subject of research.

Such units are distinguished by L.A. Kiseleva: “... Pragmemes are units of different levels of language, possessing a pragmatic predestination: they are intended to regulate human behavior. These include, first of all, those linguistic units that reflect the phenomena of the emotional-volitional sphere of the addressee's psyche and, through it, his intellectual sphere (through emotional suggestion, infection, persuasion) in order to regulate his behavior. These are the units that belong to the core of the pragmatic field (for example, emotional, emotionally evaluative and motivating interjections, as well as emotionally evaluative words such as disgusting, wonderful, darling, charm, etc.) "[Kiseleva 1978: 106].

This direction of research is criticized mainly for the isolation of the consideration of linguistic units, for the lack of expression of the connection between the sign and the recipient. As V.N. Komissarov notes: “... It is impossible to provide any evidence that the so-called emotional words (such as those quoted in similar works - ugly, delightful, etc.) are directly addressed to the pure psyche, bypassing the normal intellectual perception of such units, having an obvious conceptual content, belonging to the category of so-called evaluative ones as a product of a person's mental activity ”[Komissarov 1990: 140–141].

Having singled out a separate area in the sphere of language (after all, language, unlike speech, has an abstract and systemic essence), the researcher obtains the necessary consistency, logic and predictability of the functions of certain signs and relations between them, directly arising from the consistency and logic of language as a phenomenon. However, within the framework of this approach, the researcher is forced to reveal relationship between signs (within the framework of the language system), and in no way the relationship between the sign and the recipient - from which the definition of pragmatics comes. Thus, the allocation of the subject of pragmatics in the language system itself, in the allocation of special language signs, in our opinion, is incorrect.

So, let's define our own position in the study. pragmatic subject: it is not the pragmatic aspect of the language that is subject to research, but the pragmatic aspect of a specific text included in a set of texts, in our case, the QMS. In the aggregate of the QMS texts, it is necessary to highlight the author's intentions, which are stable in nature, repeated levels of influence and, of course, linguistic means that successfully implement the established set of goals and objectives. The factor of the success of a linguistic sign in the context of the implementation of a set of goals and objectives of a specific text allows you to stay within the framework of the relationship "sign - recipient", and not be limited to purely abstract relations of signs in the language system.

The very logic of singling out the subject of pragmatics depending on the scope of the text (in social practice) is not new. As G.V. Kolshansky writes: “... If we understand by the pragmatics of verbal communication the achievement of any goal - practical, theoretical, physical, intellectual, etc., then we can to some extent talk about the characteristics of a person's use of a linguistic sign, but only, apparently, in the sense of "successfully" or "unsuccessfully" the communicative goal was realized. Such a success of verbal communication can be defined both for an individual speech act, and for a certain social group as a whole. The question of the advisability of developing criteria for the "pragmatic success" of a speech act can only be resolved in a purely applied sense and in relation to specific areas of human linguistic communication » (highlighted by us - A.Sh.) [Kolshansky 1985: 149].

The turn in linguistic research towards the pragmatics of the language, the real conditions of its functioning, was natural and necessary. The leading directions in the science of language of the 60s - 70s, - linguistic structuralism and logical semantics, had one significant drawback - a weak connection with reality and the practical activities of people. Utterance (and speech in general) was associated in these theories with a conditional "average" native speaker, and outside the analysis were real people using the language with their feelings, relationships, intentions and goals (Gak 1998: 555). Gradually the understanding came that for a more complete explanation of the language - both its structure and the features of its use in speech - it is necessary to turn to the factors of the functioning of linguistic units, i.e. to pragmatics.

The selection and formation of linguistic pragmatics proper was stimulated, on the one hand, by the ideas of Ch.S. Pierce and CHU. Morris, and on the other hand relied on the concept of the late Wittgenstein. According to V.V. Petrov, it was the works of L. Wittgenstein that largely contributed to the transformation of pragmatics as a part of general semiotic theory into an independent field of research, laying the foundation for a powerful stream of modern works on pragmatics (Petrov 1987). The beginning of the intensive development of pragmatics is conventionally attributed to 1970 - the time of the International Symposium on the Pragmatics of Natural Languages \u200b\u200b(Bulygina 1981: 333).

Pragmatics as a special direction in the study of language from the very beginning of its existence has declared itself as a very extensive and very

uncertain scientific discipline. Almost every work on pragmatics (regardless of whether its author is guided as a whole by linguistic semantics, philosophy of language or formal logic) begins with redefining the subject of research and, in accordance with this, the author's understanding of the pragmatic in language is determined.

Describing the tasks and problems of pragmatic research, N.D. Arutyunova and E.V. Paducheva note that, gradually expanding, "they show a tendency to blur the boundaries between linguistics and related disciplines (psychology, sociology and ethnography), on the one hand, and adjacent sections of linguistics (semantics, rhetoric, stylistics), on the other" (Arutyunova, Paducheva 1985 : four).

Linguistic pragmatics is closely related to sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. The presence of common interests in pragmatics and sociolinguistics is so great that it became the reason for the allocation of even a separate discipline in foreign science - sociopragmatics, which studies the dependence of verbal communication on social factors (ARSLS 1996: 541; see also Leech 1983: 10).

The blurring of the boundaries of linguistic pragmatics is, apparently, due to the fact that in a short time it has absorbed the ideas of the theory of linguistic communication, text theory, communicative grammar, new concepts of rhetoric, the theory of speech acts, the theory of discourse, i.e. all those disciplines that have as their subject the use of language by man.

As a result, an understanding of pragmatics as a direction associated with solving a variety of problems of describing the functioning of a language is gradually being established in the scientific community. The development of the ideas of linguistic pragmatics, the definition of the spheres of its application and tasks are reflected in numerous interpretations of the term "pragmatics".

The term "pragmatic" (language learning) appeared in the 1920s - in the form of an adjective it was used in 1923 by B. Malinowski in an appendix to the book of Ogden and Richards "The Meaning of Meaning". Then, and this position in the "history of pragmatics" is generally accepted, the term "pragmatics" was created by C. Morris in 1938 for use in the famous triad of syntactics (syntax), semantics and pragmatics as parts of semiotics (Nerlich & Clarke 1994; Nerlich 1995). C. Morris, conducting research aimed at studying the structure of a sign situation (semiosis) in a dynamic, procedural aspect, including the participants in this situation, distinguished the three above aspects of semiotics, defining pragmatics as "the attitude of signs to those who interpret them" (Morris 1938 : 6). However, in the future, in connection with the development of the views of the researcher, and also due to the fact that the term has already acquired unwanted ambiguity and blurring, Morris defines pragmatics as the study of the "formation, use and effects of signs (the origin, uses and effects of signs ) "(Morris 1946: 219). From this definition it follows that the attention of a researcher should be directed to a comprehensive study of three interrelated processes of one chain - the formation, use (functioning) and influence of signs. We find an understanding of pragmatics in tune with Morris's definition in the work of G. Klaus, who refers to pragmatics "the psychological and social aspects of the use of linguistic signs" (Klaus 1967: 22).

The vision of pragmatics, as presented by Charles Fillmore, seems to be interesting. Its definition is in sufficient detail and sounds as follows: "Pragmatics studies the three-dimensional relationship that unites (1) linguistic forms, (2) communicative functions that these forms are able to perform with (3) contexts or environments in which these linguistic forms can have data linguistic functions "(quoted by Pocheptsov (Jr.) 1984: 33).

A well-known linguistic definition of pragmatics in the late 70s and early 80s was the definition proposed by R.S. Stolaker. Stolneaker's pragmatist is concerned with the study of speech acts and the contexts in which they are produced and realized. The purpose of pragmatics as a discipline should be to highlight the classification of speech acts and their products, i.e. relevant statements (Stalnaker 1972).

It is often emphasized that pragmatics largely corresponds to the principle of activity, and thus introduces an actional (activity) aspect into the description of the language. The compliance of pragmatics with the requirements of the business principle is reflected in the definition subjectpragmatics given by E.S. Aznaurova. The subject of linguistic pragmatics, in her opinion, is "the study of language in the aspect of human activity in a wide social context" (Aznaurova 1988: 8). 1 The study of the facts of language in the aspect of human activity is considered as the main postulate of pragmatics. But, as E.S. Aznaurov, "the breadth of the postulate has led to a significant scatter of topics and problems discussed within this linguistic direction, ranging from pragmatic interpretation of linguistic signs and the theory of speech acts, to the study of the pragmatic parameters of literary communication and text in its dynamics, correlated with the" I "creating the text man "(ibid: 10).

A broad understanding of pragmatics, when the scope of its interest includes questions of deixis, speech acts, presuppositions, converting implicatures, problems associated with the interpretation of speech, when the task of pragmatics as a separate linguistic science is called "the study of correspondences between language units and the effects of their use" (Pocheptsov 1985 : 16) or "the study of the relationship between linguistic forms (entities) and the users of these forms" (Yule 1996: 4) opposed the approach when the only real object of research in the field of pragmatics is considered to be implemented in the text

Speaking about the subject of pragmatics, it should be borne in mind that although a large number of linguists agree with the recognition of the status of a special linguistic discipline for pragmatics, this position is not generally accepted. A number of researchers refuse to have pragmatics in possession of their own subject of research and conclude that it is impossible to consider it as another component of the theory of language. It is given only the status of a pragmatic perspective in the consideration of linguistic phenomena (see Verschueren 1999). a pragmatic attitude, in its most general form, defined as "the conscious intention of the sender of the message to have a corresponding effect on the recipient of the speech, materialized in the text" (Naer 1985: 16). Proponents of this understanding of pragmatics believe that the proposed maximum limitation of the application of pragmatics makes it possible to single out in the language a sphere associated with a goal-setting speech effect, similar to an act (Geliya 1988: 189).

This understanding of the tasks of pragmatics is reflected in studies that focus on the final result of communication - the effect of influence (perlocutionary effect according to Austin), when the issues of studying the verbal control of human behavior, modeling social and individual behavior of people through speech are at the forefront (Kiseleva 1978 ).

A pragmatic approach to understanding the nature of language was formed and continues to develop under the sign of including the speaker's subjectivity in this understanding. So, in the concept of Yu.S. Stepanov's category of the subject is defined as the central category of modern pragmatics (Stepanov 1981; 1985; 2001). At the same time, with increasing clarity, the need to take into account the addressee factor, i.e. the subjectivity of the listener, which serves as a starting point for the development of a theory of interpretation of speech works that appear in certain communicative contexts, when the object of interpretation is what is commonly called the pragmatic meaning of the statement (Arutyunova 1981).

Some researchers believe that the concept of interpretation allows one to formulate observations on the properties of language in the most natural way and, in one way or another, is present in any pragmatic study (Demyankov 1981: 369). The third point of view on the significance of the factors of the subject of speech and the addressee is the approach that defines the trajectory of pragmatics as a movement from egocentrism to the principle of aggregate binarity "along the line of synthesis of the sender's subjectivity and the addressee's subjectivity into a single and collectively acting factor" (Sidorov 1995: 470).

Comprehensive consideration of various factors that are emphasized in pragmatic research "allows a deeper understanding of the specifics of the language in its real use" (Gak 1997: 361) and testifies to the extraordinary potential of pragmatics.

As can be seen from the above definitions, bringing to the fore a particular group of factors allows us to speak about different types or variants of pragmatics. Back in the early 1970s, T.M. Dridze confidently assumed the existence of two pragmatists - the "pragmatics of the communicator" and the "pragmatics of the recipient" (Dridze 1972: 34-35). J. Yul, already at the end of the 1990s, concretizes the concept of a user ("user") and gives a capacious definition of pragmatics, which takes into account the position of the sender, the position of the recipient and defines different options for pragmatics, depending on the perspective of the study. J. Yule's pragmatics "deals with the study of meaning as communicated by the speaker (or writer) and interpreted by the listener (or reader), which allows us to speak about: (1) pragmatics is the study of speaker" s meaning ); (2) pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning; (3) pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than said; (4) pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance (Yule 1996: 3).

Here it is interesting to compare the varieties of pragmatics proposed by J. Yule with a fairly detailed presentation of the tasks of pragmatics as formulated by N.D. Arutyunova. The author identifies four main problems, including a set of questions related to the speaking subject, the addressee, their interaction in communication and the communication situation.

In connection with the subject of speech in pragmatics, the following are studied: (1) explicit and hidden goals of the utterance; (2) speech tactics and types of speech behavior; (3) rules of conversation, subordinated to the principle of cooperation; (4) the speaker's attitude or the pragmatic meaning of the utterance; (5) speaker's reference; (6) pragmatic presuppositions; (7) the speaker's attitude to what he communicates.

In connection with the addressee of speech, the following are considered: (1) interpretation of speech; (2) the impact of the utterance on the addressee; (3) types of speech response to the received stimulus.

In connection with the relations between the participants of communication, the following are studied: (1) forms of verbal communication; (2) social etiquette side of speech; (3) the relationship between the participants in communication in certain speech acts (i.e., role relationships).

In connection with the situation of communication in pragmatics, the following are investigated: (1) the interpretation of deictic signs, as well as index components in the meaning of words; (2) the influence of the speech situation on the topics and forms of communication (Arutyunova 1990a: 390).

Comparing the options for pragmatics by J. Yule and the scope of application, the tasks of pragmatics in N.D. Arutyunova, it is impossible not to notice that the pragmatics of implication highlighted by Yul is included in N.D. Arutyunova in a wide range of issues studied in connection with the subject of speech, and the pragmatics of contextual meaning in Yul is nothing more than a narrowed range of issues considered in connection with the addressee of speech. In general, we observe isomorphism in the definition of a set of basic questions, which can be interpreted as the gradual formation of the contours of pragmatics.

The appeal of linguists to the study of the functioning of linguistic units in speech "allows us to talk about pragmatics in the sense of the communicative properties of the units under consideration. They talk about" pragmatics of the word "," pragmatics of a sentence "(utterance), etc., having in mind, firstly, the features of linguistic entities in certain pragmatic situations and the conditions of functioning and, secondly, the realization of meaning in the context under the influence of various pragmatic parameters.In the first case, we can talk about "external pragmatics", and in the second - about "internal pragmatics" (sometimes called pragmatics ) "1 (Gorshunov 1999: 5-6). We believe that the explicitly proposed by Yu.V. Gorshunov, the division of pragmatics into "external" and "internal", contained implicitly in a number of works, is of theoretical interest and once again confirms all the grounds to speak of pragmatic meaning as part of linguistic meaning.

Understanding "internal pragmatics", as socially conscious and fixed by the usus at the level of the pragmatic information system, admits threefold interpretation: (1) semantic information is considered as a part of communicative-pragmatic information; (2) both components are thought of as equal, autonomous, but fulfilling their purpose in close relationship with each other, or (3) pragmatic information is considered embedded in semantic information (cf. Leech 1983: 6).

The first approach (Malcolm and other Oxford philosophers) is based on the ideas of the late Wittgenstein, when "for a vast class of cases - although not for all - in which we use words, the meaning can be defined as follows: the meaning of a word is its use in language" ( cited after Arutyunov 1976: 44). With this approach, the theory of meaning loses its denotative character and becomes a communicative theory of meaning, which was attributed not only to the meaning of the utterance, but also to the meaning of the words included in it. For linguistics, this kind of theory, in which no fundamental distinction is made between the meaning of a word, sentence, and utterance, can hardly be effective (see for more details Arutyunova 1976: 39-45).

Within the framework of the second approach, there are attempts to refer to the conduct of semantics the meaning of linguistic units independent of the context, and to the conduct of pragmatics - the speech functions of linguistic utterances and situational

M.V. Nikitin defines pragmasemantics as the study of that part of the aggregate meaning of utterances and texts that relates to the intentions of speech, i.e. to those pragmatic tasks that the speaker solves through speech (Nikitin 1996, 619). Wed definition of the language of interpretations used in the Moscow and Polish schools of semantics as a "pragmasemantic language" in Sannikov 1989. See also in this regard Pocheschov (Jr.) 1984; Stalnaker 1972.

The conditioned side of the propositions expressed in them. Some researchers define the boundaries of pragmatics by examining aspects of meaning that are not covered by semantic theory (Levinson 1983). At the same time, when proposing such a distinction, it is recognized that an adequate (semantic or pragmatic) theory has not yet been developed that would allow an unambiguous answer to the question of where semantics ends and pragmatics begins (see, for example, Bulygia 1981; The Semantics / Pragmatics interface ... 1999).

On the other hand, many researchers point out that the most adequate results can be achieved if semantics and pragmatics are considered as interrelated parts of one whole: "There is no semantics without pragmatics - but there is also no pragmatics without semantics" (Kiefer 1985: 347 ). P. Sgall also notes that all attempts to study semantics, regardless of pragmatics, are doomed to failure (Sgall 1986: 45).

The point of view of Yu.D. Apresyan. Understanding pragmatics broadly enough, the author believes that only that pragmatic information that is lexicalized or grammatical is of linguistic interest, i.e. acquired a permanent status in the language (Apresyan 1988; 1995a). Another representative of the Moscow School of Semantics, V.Z. Sannikov, who under the meaning of a linguistic unit understands its semantics and pragmatics, interpreting the latter as "information about respect speaking and listening to the described objects and to each other "(Sannikov 1989: 84).

Much in common with the concept of Yu.D. Apresyan has a vision of V.I. Zabotkina (Zabotkina 1989; 1993). Recognizing the existence of a complex dialectical connection between pragmatics and semantics, the researcher defines the pragmatics of the word as part of the aggregate semantics, which carries information about the social status of the speakers, about the real conditions of consumption and about the expected effect of the impact on the listener. In other words, we are talking here about pragmatic components that are fixed thanks to usus in the semantic structure of the word, reflect the parameters of its use in typified communication situations and provide pragmatic marking of the word at the system level.

A. Vezhbitskaya and her followers (E.V. Paducheva and others) solve the problem of the border between semantics and pragmatics in the most radical way. This question itself, Vezhbitskaya believes, does not make sense, due to the fact that such a boundary does not exist: pragmatics is a part of semantics that studies a certain range of linguistic meanings. In the concept of Vezhbitskaya, the autonomy of pragmatics in relation to semantics turns out to be imaginary, there is a single semantics of pragmatics, or simply pragmatics is one of the parts into which the author divides the task of describing the semantics of a language. "Linguistic meanings are pragmatic in principle: with a person, with a speech situation, not any specially highlighted expressive elements are associated in the language, but in general the meaning of the overwhelming majority of words and grammatical units" (Paducheva 1996: 222). The boundaries of pragmatics, as they are understood in the work of Wierzbicka 1991, are delineated precisely on the basis of the nature of meaning, when the competence of the pragmatist includes those linguistic elements in which attitudinal components (subjective, expressive, and others) dominate over denotative ones, i.e. linguistic elements of any formal type, united only by the fact that they mainly carry "pragmatic information" (Paducheva 1996: 223).

It is known that the functions performed by them are closely related to the meanings of linguistic units, since the study of the functions of one form or another covers the analysis of its meaning: "The meaning is directly subordinate to the function that the corresponding unit performs; it is formed depending on the purpose of this unit" (Arutyunova 1976: 44). Distinguishing between the semantic and structural functions of a language, some linguists point to a complex relationship between functions semantic and n ragmatic... The latter can be considered as a special aspect of semantic functions, the essence of which is to convey the relationship between the content of linguistic units and the utterance as a whole to the participants in the speech act and its conditions (Boidarko 1987: 8-9). That is, it is rather difficult to draw a clear line between semantics and pragmatics. Both (to one degree or another) reflect anthropocentrism that permeates modern science, they widely use extralinguistic data, must take into account the context factor, etc.

In our dissertation research, we proceed from a broad understanding of pragmatics as a special linguistic discipline, taking as a basis the capacious, multifaceted definition of D. Crystal. Pragmatics is the science "studying a language from the point of view of the person using it, in terms of the selection of linguistic units, restrictions on their use in social communication and the effect of influencing the participants in communication" (Crystal 1985: 240). "

In understanding pragmatics as part of linguistic meaning, we adhere to a pragmatic-semantic approach based on the concepts of Yu.D. Apresyan, A. Vezhbitskaya, V.I. Zabotkina.

There is no doubt that the study of "internal pragmatics" (pragmasemantics) is one of the tasks of linguistic pragmatics and concerns its poorly studied and debatable area (Gorshunov 2000). Research, development and clarification of already established pragmatic components, identification of the features of their interaction and impact on the addressee on various lexical material, are of significant theoretical and practical interest and play an important role in the study of the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic units.

The formation of the pragmatist is probably not over yet. There are still a lot of controversial questions. These are questions about the attitude of pragmatics and

Wed with a later definition by the same author: "Pragmatics studies the factors that determine our choice of linguistic means in social interaction and the impact of this choice on others" (Crystal 1997: 120) sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, stylistics, rhetoric, with which pragmatics has vast areas of intersection research interests. This is a range of issues related to how a person embodies himself in a linguistic sign, in an utterance, lives and acts as a linguistic person who uses language to achieve his goals, to convey his attitude to reality, the content of the message, to communication partners, to influence them.

In this regard, J. Verschueren's thesis that the dimension that pragmatics is called upon to comprehend and reveal is a space created by the connection between language and human life as a whole (Verschueren 1999: 6).

Everyone had to deal with people who are very clear about what exactly they want, what they strive for, and what is needed in order to get or achieve what they want. That is, they always and in everything act according to a clear plan, going towards the intended goal, which they clearly represent. Such people do not say: I myself do not know what I want! They always know it very well! And they usually achieve their goals without stopping or turning. Such people are called pragmatists... Thus, pragmatists are successful people who get everything they need.

Looking at them from the outside sometimes it seems that they are ordinary lucky ones: well, how do they do everything? Why are the circumstances in their favor? How do they manage to always be where they need to be? Why do they not know, well, or hardly know defeat and do not fail? What is special about them ?!

So who is this very pragmatist? And what is pragmatism?

Pragmatists are people a little different from everyone else, although, in fact, there is nothing unusual about them. They are not endowed with the gift of clairvoyance, hypnotic abilities, they cannot read the thoughts of other people. But, nevertheless, pragmatists are successful people. Why? But because they have a special mindset. Analytical.

These are very strong people who achieve their goals. The actions of the pragmatists are meaningful and logical. In any undertaking, a pragmatist has a clear strategy. He does not recognize anyone's authority, has his own point of view based on sober reasoning. The pragmatist does not exchange for unnecessary and useless little things, ruthlessly throwing them aside. The pragmatist relies on himself, never shifting responsibility to others, independently achieves everything he strives for. Will not hide behind someone's back.

It is worth noting that a pragmatist needs a benefit not necessarily material. Moral satisfaction may well become the goal of such a person, which he will certainly experience. Pragmatists value time, an important resource, and treat it with respect. Things are clearly planned, then adhering to the plans, never abandoning what they started halfway through. And this is one of the components of the success of people of a pragmatic nature.

Pragmatic people are not dreamers, on the contrary. Rather, materialists, far from sentimentality. Pragmatists are demanding of themselves, and those around them, obligatory, responsible. Thanks to a sober view of the world, without rose-colored glasses, pragmatists are usually not disappointed.

As for the attitude of a pragmatist to material goods, such people value financial freedom very much. They usually earn good money. Pragmatists often become successful businessmen. In this they are greatly helped by the ability to cold, sober calculation. Pragmatists are ready to invest efforts or finances only being sure that they will receive many times more invested.

It sounds cynical, but it is not entirely true. Pragmatists are often ready to sincerely care for loved ones, helping financially and spiritually, but only if they receive the same attitude towards themselves in return. And usually, feeling this on a subconscious level, they are not mistaken.

Such people are usually not materialistic. They are not petty, there is no petty bargaining, miserliness, greediness in them. The pragmatist head of the family will not harass the household, reproaching him for irrepressible waste. But in their actions there is a certain, and a considerable share of selfishness: no pragmatist will ever help those who will not appreciate the help and will not be grateful. Is this good or bad? It is difficult to answer unequivocally. In addition, they are distrustful and doubt the words and actions of other people. People around them often consider them cynics and this is also true to a certain extent.

When did pragmatism appear? Pragmatism in philosophy.

Pragmatism is a branch of philosophy, the basis of which is a practical approach to some dogmas of truth, the meaning of events and phenomena. The founder is considered (XIX century).

It was he who first gave a clear definition of pragmatism. Also, the works of such scientists as William James , George Satayana, John Dewey... The main directions include fallibilism, verificationism, radical empiricism, anti-realism, instrumentalism, but there are others.

The interpretation of the term "pragmatism" is to reject the objectivity of the laws of philosophy, recognizing aspects, phenomena that can be useful in research.

In the 60s of the twentieth century, a new independent school of philosophy was formed. Her teaching was based on the interpretation of pragmatism according to the ideas of the thinkers who are the founders. The followers of this school rejected the fundamental postulates of logical empiricism and neo-positivism. Representatives - Wilfrid Sellars, Willard Quine... Their point of view was further clearly formulated and developed Richard Rorty... The teaching of pragmatism took two directions: analytics and relativism ... There is also a third neoclassical trend, as its representative should be mentioned Susan Haack.

Despite the fact that others are more often wary of pragmatists, considering them cold and soulless, many people want to have a pragmatic character in the best sense of the word. But not everyone realizes the opportunity to cultivate pragmatic traits in themselves on their own. How is it?

1. Determine the goal... Of course, it must be real, not fantastic. Then decide for yourself what and how you need to undertake, carrying out the task. And go to achieve it, not thinking about possible failure and not being distracted by everything that is not directly related and can interfere.
2. To plan life prospects not only for the near, but also for the distant future. Pragmatists do not dream, they try to find an opportunity to fulfill their desires, and usually they do. Almost all dreams can be embodied in one way or another into something quite real, and therefore achievable.
3. Having started some business, in no case do not throw it halfway, by all means bring it to the end. Any complex task can be solved. And after the fulfillment, a feeling of satisfaction and confidence will appear.
4. Develop an action strategy and always stick to it... All had and still have unfulfilled desires. Having clearly understood for yourself what exactly you want most, you can begin to draw up an approximate scheme of actions in order to fulfill your own aspirations. If this requires financial expenses, estimate how and how much you will have to spend. You may need the help of relatives and friends. And here, too, it is important to imagine who will be able to contact when, in order to get it for sure. You need to be clear about what skills or abilities are needed to achieve the goal, and what may be an obstacle to this.
5. and don't waste it.
6. Constantly something new, read more books for personal growth.

Such a model of behavior must be adhered to always and in everything, thus it will be possible to become an organized and pragmatic person.

Flask cycle - one of the learning models based on the stage-by-stage formation of mental actions.

Its author is an expert in the psychology of adult learning David Kolb (David A. Kolb). In his opinion, the learning process is a cycle or a kind of spiral. This is a kind of cycle of personal experience accumulation, later - reflection and reflection, and as a result - action.

The main 4 stages of the model The flask are as follows:

1) Direct, concrete experience (concrete experience) - any person should already have some experience in the field or area that he wants to learn.

2) Observation and reflection or mental observation (observation and reflection) - this stage involves thinking and analyzing by a person his experience and knowledge.

3) Formation of abstract concepts and models or abstract conceptualization (forming abstract concepts) - at this stage, a certain model is built that describes the information received, experience. Ideas are generated, relationships are built, new information is added about how everything works and how it works.

4) Active experimentation (testing in new situations) - the last stage involves experimentation and testing for the applicability of the created model, concept. The result of this stage is an immediate new experience. Then the circle is closed.

Stage name	The essence	Result
Experience gained	A person tries to do something from what he learns, in practice, and in the way he can now, regardless of whether his skills are sufficient.	Understanding of the need for further training (it did not work out or did not work out too well) or the conclusion that everything is fine as it is. Obviously, in the latter case, further steps are not needed.
Reflection	Analysis of the pros and cons of the experience gained, conclusions about what was done successfully, and what could have been done better or differently.	Preparedness for the need for change and training, in some cases - full or partial knowledge of how to act correctly.
Theory	Gaining theoretical knowledge on how to act correctly in conjunction with the acquired experience and its analysis.	The correct algorithms for actions for the future have been obtained.
Reinforcement in practice	Development of theory, translation of knowledge into skills and abilities, correction by the head.	The necessary skills have been fully or partially worked out and consolidated.

The main dangerous moment of the Kolb cycle can be demotivation and a decrease in self-esteem of the individual in the event that the experience gained is frankly unsuccessful. Therefore, if you decide to use the Kolb cycle in your work with employees, be patient and think in advance how you will act in such a situation. When using this method, you need all your art of feedback, knowledge of the rules of criticism.

Kolb (1984) observed that different people have a clear preference for different behaviors - practical action or theorizing. Then he suggested that most of the time we study in one of four ways:

• concrete Experience;
• reflective observation (Reflection);
• abstract modeling (Abstract Conceptualization);
• active Experimentation

English psychologists P. Honey and A. Mumford (P. Honey, A. Mumford) described various learning stylesand also developed the Honey Mumford Preferred Learning Style Test.

Highlighted the following four learning styles:

• "Activists" - independent trial and error: actively do new and new,
• Thinkers - come up with your own before doing: measured detached analysis of a lot of information,
• "Theorists" - logically structure what is happening: creating a sequence of goals and algorithms,
• "Pragmatists" - trying new ideas to solve real-world problems: quick practical benefits.

Activistloves to learn something new, get new experience, he wants to experience everything himself and to participate in everything himself. He likes to be in the center of events and attention, and he prefers to take an active position rather than remain an outside observer. Solves problems on the fly.

Thinker prefers to first observe, reflect, understand the new to the end, and only then act. He is inclined to re-analyze what he has seen, experienced and passed. He likes to find his own solution, does not like to be rushed, and prefers to have a spare time to find a solution in due time.

The theoristdeveloped logical thinking and methodicalness are inherent, he prefers to move step by step towards solving the problem, asks many questions. He is characterized by some detachment and an analytical mindset. Loves tasks that require intellectual effort, is suspicious of intuition and out-of-the-box thinking, giving preference to building models and systems. Step by step is getting closer to solving the problem.

The pragmatist he does not need a theory, he only needs a solution suitable for the current problem. The pragmatist strives to find practical solutions, try everything quickly, and move on to action. Not inclined to go deep into theory. Likes to experiment, look for new ideas that can be immediately tested in real conditions. He acts quickly and confidently, approaches everything in a businesslike, down-to-earth manner and takes on the solution of emerging problems with passion.

It should be noted that people do not consciously choose which stage to start from. They are hostages to their approach (behavior model).

In order to determine what type a person belongs to, E. Cameron and M. Green propose to answer the following question:

“If you were writing a book about change and wanted to convey maximum knowledge to future readers, you would need:

• conduct an experiment (activist);
• a sufficient number of questions for reflection (thinker);
• thoroughly investigate various models (theorist);
• illustrate your thoughts with examples and include useful tools, techniques and applications (pragmatist). "

Below is roughly one of the most common structures of an interactive lessonbuilt according to Kolb's principles:

1. Motivation and announcement of a new topic
2. Consolidation (repetition) of the passed - 20% of the total lesson duration;
3. Learning new material - 50% of the total lesson duration;
4. Assessment - 10% of the total lesson duration;
5. Summing up the lesson (debriefing, reflection) - 10% of the total lesson duration.

The temporal distribution in this scheme can be considered conditional, the teacher can, at his discretion and depending on the characteristics of the lesson, extend or shorten certain stages of the lesson, however, it is desirable that all the listed qualitative stages of the lesson are preserved.

The preferred learning style for students is determined using special questionnaires, but a preliminary interview (interview) will also help to navigate. When conducting it, you need to pay attention to the nature of the questions regarding the upcoming training, which are asked by its future participants ( tab. one).

Tab. 1. Types of students and their preferences

The process of improving skills, improving professional skills never stops: it can be represented as an endless spirals of competence development (fig. 4).

The Spiral of Competence Development

Management Consulting Specialist Reg Revans formulated a kind the law of successful business adaptation: "The company (and employees) will thrive as long as the rate of learning in it is higher (or equal) to the rate of change in the external environment."

It is believed that D. Kolb's model is a rehash of the classical theory of the stage-by-stage formation of mental actions, developed by the Russian psychologist P.Ya. Galperin with colleagues back in the early 1950s. Subsequently, this theory was developed by the works of didactic specialists - first of all, N.F. Talyzina (Talyzina N.F., Theoretical problems of programmed teaching. Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1969).