Cognitive-pragmatic view on interpretative representation

INTRODUCTION. The aim of the study is the cognitive-pragmatic view on the interpretative representation in English.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Research methods include cognitive analysis, semantic analysis, discourse analysis and a method of inferential analysis. We also propose a method of cognitive modeling for a visual presentation of interpretative processing model. The factual material is based on samples of examples from authentic English dictionaries, as well as online resources. The data analysis proved that much information can be presented indirectly, and it leads to hidden associations and evaluative inferences.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. The study has shown the role of such mechanisms in processes of the interpretative representation, as the mechanism of meaning extension, the mechanism of opposition, the mechanism of duplication, the mechanism of conceptual substitution and the mechanism of associative implications, as well as the syntactic constructions, representing various interpretations. Among them there are constructions with interpersonal parentheticals, quasi-subordinate constructions, syncretic constructions, constructions with the phraseological unit God knows, backhanded compliments, tautological constructions and constructions with conceptual metaphors, conceptual metonymies and conceptual comparisons.
CONCLUSION. It is concluded that the interpretative representation process is complex and multidimensional, however, engaging a cognitive-pragmatic approach allows to reveal the information complexity and to interpret hidden meanings, as well as to infer all evaluative associations.

1. Grice P. Logic and conversation. In: Speech Acts, Syntax and Semantics. New York, Academic Press, 1975, pp. 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003

2. Searle J.R. Indirect speech acts. In: Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts. New York, Academic Press, 1975, pp. 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004

3. Wilson D., Sperber D. Representation and relevance. In: Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality. New York, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 133-153.

4. Furs L.A. Irregular loading of sentence meaning: a cognitive-pragmatic view. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2023, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 953-961. https://elibrary.ru/qmpvqc

5. Kubryakova E.S. Correlation between language and world and its link to the notion of knowledge. Cognitive Studies of Language, 2008, vol. 3, pp. 11-24. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/pnolwt

6. Boldyrev N.N. Anthropocentric nature of language in its functions, units, and categories. Issues of Cognitive Linguistic, 2015, no. 1 (42), pp. 5-12. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/thiswp

7. Langacker R.W. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In: Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1999, pp. 13-59. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.13

8. Croft W., Cruse D.A. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, 356 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864

9. Furs L.A. Subjective interpretation in syntax: How the mind structures reality. Proceedings of the Philological Readings “European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences”. London, EPSBS Publ., 2020, pp. 39-47. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.04.02.5, https://elibrary.ru/kmpohy

10. Talmy L. Atttention Phenomena. In: The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 264-293. https://www.academia.edu/44077776/THE_OXFORD_HANDBOOK_OF_COGNITIVE_LINGUIS

11. Talmy L. Semantics. In: Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin, Walter De Gruyter, 2011, vol. 1, pp. 622-642.

12. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980, 256 p. https://books.google.ru/books?id=iyZgQgAACAAJ&hl=ru&source=gbs_navlinks_s

13. Lakoff G., Turner M. More than Cool Reason: a Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989, 230 p. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001

14. Furs L.A. Interaction of cognitive and metacognitive levels in the formation of complex knowledge. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 2018, no. 2 (55), pp. 74-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2018-2-74-78, https://elibrary.ru/yvjdlk

15. Furs L.A. Cognition and cognitive dynamics. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 2021, no. 3, pp. 52-58. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2021-3-52-58, https://elibrary.ru/ltyqvq