MODELUL INFERENȚIAL. O ABORDARE PRAGMATICĂ DE INTERPRETARE A DISCURSULUI

Lucia VESTE

Abstract


Modelul inferențial reprezintă o abordare, inițial pragmatică, de interpretare a unui enunț. Studiile mai recente au de­monstrat însă că o bună parte din principiile pragmatice sunt conexe cu abordarea semiotică. Prin urmare, crearea de in­ferențe în procesul interpretativ, este, de fapt, un model semiopragmatic, care nu anulează nicidecum conceptele semiotice, or, limba rămâne a fi un sistem de semne, ci le completează prin entități pragmatice, precum: premise implicitate, ipoteze contextuale, sensul locutorului, prezumția de pertinență, concluzii implicitate, crearea metareprezentărilor, pertinența optimă etc.

Toate aceste aspecte pragmatice facilitează procesul interpretativ, de exegeză și, în același timp, asigură o analiză mai profundă și mai complexă a sensului intenționat de locutor; or, adesea sensul implicit al locutorului diferă de sensul explicit al frazei, mai ales că semnificațiile frazei sunt multiple comparativ cu sensul enunțului care este singular.

 

THE INFERENTIAL MODEL.
A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ADVERTISING DISCOURSE

the inferential model was initially a pragmatic approach to interpreting a statement. more recent studies, however, have shown that much of the pragmatic principles are related to the semiotic approach. therefore, the creation of in­ferences in the interpretative process is in fact a semio-pragmatic model, which does not in any way cancel the semiotic concepts, or the language remains a system of signs, but it complements them by pragmatic entities, such as implicit premises, contextual hypotheses, the speaker meaning, the presumption of relevance, implicit conclusions, metarepresentation, the optimal pertinence etc.

all these pragmatic aspects facilitate the interpretative and exegesis process and, at the same time, provide a deeper and more complex analysis of the speaker meaning, or often the implicit speaker meaning differs from the explicit sen­tence meaning, especially since the sentence meanings are multiple comparative in the statement meaning that is singular.


Full Text:

PDF

References


TANAKA, K. Advertising language: a pragmatic approach to advertisements in Britain and Japan. Ney York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. 148 p.

Wilson D. Linguistic Structure and Inferential Communication. In: Caron B. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Oxford: Elsevier Sciences, 1997, p.1-20.

FLOCH, J.M. Sémiotique, marketing et communication. Sous les signes les stratégies. Paris: PUF, 1990. 233 p.

ROVENŢA-FRUMUŞANI, D. Analiza discursului. Ipoteze şi ipostaze. Bucureşti: Tritonic, 2005. 170 p.

BYRNE, B. Relevance Theory and the language of advertising. CLS Occasional Paper No. 31, Trinity Coll., Dublin (Ireland). Centre for Language and Communication Studies, 1992. 80 p.

RICHARDSON, K. Signs and Wonders: Interpreting the Economy through Television. In: Bell A., Garrett P. Approaches to Media Discourse. Blackwell Publishers Ldt, 1998, p.220-250.

REBOUL, A. Moeschler J. Pragmatique du discours. De l’interprétation de l’énoncé à l’interprétation du discours. Paris: Armand Colin, 1998. 220 p.

YUS, Fr. The role of cognition and relevance in new digital narratives. In: Prospettive multilingue e interdisciplinari nel discoro specialistico. Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2015, p.81-107.

SPERBER, D., WILSON, D. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edition, 1995. 338 p.

PADILLA CRUZ, M. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. In: Carol A., Chapelle (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley, 2015. 6 p.

PADILLA CRUZ, M. Vigilance Mechanism in Interpretation: Hermeneutical Vigilance. In: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, 133,11 p.

WILSON, D., SPERBER, D. Relevance Theory. In: R.Horn and L.Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p.607-632.

REBOUL, A. MOESCHLER, J. La pragmatique aujourd’hui. Nancy: Éditions du Seuil, 1998. 209 p.

YUS, Fr. Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016, p.367.

ARROYO, O.A. La théorie de la pertinence appliquée à une fable de La Fontaine. In: L’information grammaticale, 2009, no123, p.3-9.

ECO, U. Sémiotique et philosophie du langage. Paris: Quadrige /PUF, 1988. 285 p.

GRICE, H.P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P. & Morgan J.L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3 : Speech Acts. New York, Academic Press, 1975, p.41-58.

GRICE, H.P. Meaning. In: Philosophical Review, 1957, no.66(3). Reprinted as ch.14 of Grice 1989, p.213–223.

SMITH, K.G. Relevance Theory. In: Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, P-Z, General Editor Geoffrey Khan, Leiden-Boston, Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013, p.364-367.

KLINKENBERG, J.-M. Précis de sémiotique générale. Paris: De Boeck & Larcier S.A., 1996, p.486.

PADILLA CRUZ, M. Pragmatic failure, epistemic injustice and epistemic vigilance. In: Language & Communication, vol.39, November, Elsevier, 2014, p.34-50.

XU, Z. Relevance Theory and its Application to Advertising Interpretation. In: Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol.3, no.3, March, Academy Publisher Manufactured in Finland, 2013, p.492-496.

SCHOTT-BOURGET, V. Approches de la linguistique. Paris: Nathan, 2003. 128 p.

DOOLEY, R.A. Relevance Theory and Discourse Analysis: Complementary Approaches for Translator Training. Dallas, Texas: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved From www.Gial.Edu/Gialens/Issues.Htm.11p.

BLUTNER, R., ZEEVAT, H. Optimality-Theoretic Pragmatics. In: Benz A. Blutner R., ZAS papers in linguistic (ZASPiL), no.51, Language and Computation, ZAS, 2009. 25 p.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.