<<
>>

conclusions


Description experience modusov communications bona fide and non bona fide allows to make some conclusions. Allocation and the description of various modes of dialogue bona fide and non bona fide cannot be spent on the uniform basis.
Complexity and dynamism of a discourse demands introduction of variety of parametres (attributes) which define the basic properties of communications bona fide and non bona fide. Various modes are characterised by concrete values of parametres. A parity of parametres (is more exact, their possible values, relevant for a choice of rules of interpretation of the statement) and various modes of communications bona fide and non bona fide it is possible to formalize in the form of the scheme where values of parametres and modes of communications interesting us are in the relation źmany to many╗ (a Fig. 8). It means, that, first, the description of different modes of communications demands different quantity of parametres. More difficult from the point of view of semantics and pragmatists diskursivnye practice (the irony, humour, sarcasm) demand the account bolshego quantity of parametres (for example, for irony it it is necessary to consider seven parametres). Secondly, for the description of a concrete mode of communications not all set parametres can appear the relevant. At last, for decision-making on how follows

To interpret told, some parametres appear more important in comparison with others.
Fig. 13. Polyparametrical modelling of modes modusov a discourse bona fide and non bona fide



In the given model the majority of parametres is presented only in two values: [+] and [-], that is situation simplification. The exception was made only by parametre źkoopertivnost and rationality of speech actions speaking╗ which in the presented model is realised in three values: the statement can be co-operative and rational (this majority of cases of communications), not co-operative, but thus rational (this distinctive property of lie), or not co-operative and irrational (in case of an absurd discourse). Potentially the list of values of attributes can be expanded, and then the model modusov communications bona fide and non bona fide will be more detailed.
The given scheme confirms idea about nediskretnosti a discourse [Kibrik 2012]. Presence of the general properties at various modes modusov communications bona fide and non bona fide - one of the reasons of what far not always probably unequivocally to define, in what mode there is a dialogue. However it does not mean, that nediskretnost a discourse does impossible modelling of processes of understanding told / written in various modes of communications. Process of decision-making on what "set" corrected interpretations it is necessary to apply to the concrete statement / to the text, can be described in likelihood terms. It is possible to say that in the course of interpretation of the discourse heard or read participants estimate degree of probability of this or that way of understanding. We will notice, that metalinguistic comments-questions are signals of that some variants of interpretation appear equiprobable.
It is important also, that the offered parametres can have the different weight, different degree of the importance. It is obvious, that to decision-making on, whether the statement is comic or ironical, parametres lt appear the most essential; expression оценкиgt; and lt; the appeal to emotions / разумуgt;: depending on what value "will appropriate" it
The addressee in a concrete situation of dialogue, the statement will be
It is interpreted either as humour, or as irony. There is no uniform algorithm of the description of various modes
modusov communications bona fide and non bona fide. For some modes (for example, for an absurd discourse), enough two parametres. The irony, humour and sarcasm in this respect appear in more difficult ways of communications: for their recognition it is required bolshee quantity
Parametres. As parametres on which basis it is possible to establish similarities and distinctions between various types of serious and frivolous dialogue, have different degree of the importance, they can be ordered in the form of hierarchy. Consistently applying them, it is possible to allocate and describe various types of communications bona fide and non bona fide.
The hierarchy of parametres reflects degree of their importance at acceptance by the addressee of the decision on a way of interpretation of the told. The most important is the criterion of a parity of the statement with a reality - on its basis two are allocated modusa communications. The basis for the further allocation explicit and implitsitnogo discourse modes bona fide is the parametre źnecessity of attraction logic / likelihood inferentsii╗: if in the explicit
Statements the addressee can receive all information, leaning only on the statement form in a case implitsitnoj communications to the addressee should "restore" some information or by an is formal-logic conclusion, or leaning on own intuition and knowledge of the world.
Schematically it is possible to present process of a choice of a mode of interpretation as follows (fig. 14):

Fig. 14. Model of algorithm of interpretation of statements bona fide and non bona fide



As to modusa non bona fide game / pretence of the speaking can be considered as a signal of rationality of speech actions. Absence of game in actions of the speaking allows to separate an absurd discourse already on the second step. By way of illustration we will result a context in which words of the interlocutor [And] are classified as bosh. A principal cause such kategorizatsii - discrepancy told before real

Situations in aggregate with absence of a signal game
Behaviour / pretence.
[4.36] so our policemen for the present at own expense basically buy the equipment and on repairs are thrown off... And how you think for whose account all it??? Ljalja, to you to listen, and the police at us at own expense cars, buys the equipment... Yet does not arm at own expense, is not present? And your favourite administration at own expense in an order results a city... All they, poor, at own expense, and we, reptiles such, do not appreciate them. Can the bosh will suffice to bear? [NKRJA]
Further on the basis of that, the signal is how much obvious
Pretence / games, the lie appears opposed to other modes of a discourse non bona fide: to humour, irony and sarcasm. Thus, two "unhumorous" modes of communications appear are opposed three other modes of "frivolous" use of language.
The further distinction of humour, irony and sarcasm is based on presence in the statement / the estimation text on a scale źgiven - due╗ and on degree eksplitsitnosti this estimation. For comic communications deonticheskaja the estimation is not obligatory, and it distinguishes humour from irony and sarcasm. To name told by irony or sarcasm the native speaker can depending on that, how much obviously speaking expresses the negative relation to a discussed situation.
In model of a choice of a mode of interpretation will not mention one more important component of communications - possibility of metalinguistic comments. It does not mean, that metacommunications do not play a role in the course of a choice of a way of understanding of the statement; on the contrary, the explicit instructions on modus bona fide or non bona fide are a way of removal of pragmatical ambiguity in those situations when both variants of interpretation told / written are equiprobable.
Chapter 5 is devoted possibility metalinguistic (more precisely, metapragmatical) irony commenting in a discourse. The reference to metacommunications level represents for us interest as explicit interpretation of the statement as ironical or, on the contrary, not ironical, allows to understand how there is a switching between modusami bona fide and non bona fide, and also ordinary native speakers carry what speech actions to irony.


<< | >>
A source: Shilihina Ksenia Mihajlovna. DISCOURSE PRACTICE OF IRONY: COGNITIVE, SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ASPECTS. 2014

More on topic conclusions:

  1. CONCLUSIONS ON CHAPTER 1
  2. Conclusions
  3. Conclusions
  4. Conclusions
  5. Conclusions
  6. Conclusions
  7. conclusions
  8. CONCLUSIONS
  9. conclusions
  10. Conclusions
  11. conclusions
  12. Conclusions
  13. Conclusions
  14. conclusions
  15. conclusions
  16. Conclusions
  17. conclusions
  18. Conclusions
  19. Conclusions
  20. 4.4 Short conclusions