Message Structure (Cttb) Of The Utterance Containing The Osgt

Also at the grammatical level, we also pay special attention to the statistics of some modal expressions that limit the implicational modality frame in utterances containing OSGT. Some modal expressions use vanity words and colloquial combinations to create implicit meanings such as: surely, perhaps, seemingly, not possible, not reasonable, turn out, fall out, no wonder, cowardly, cowardly, cowardly. it seems, it seems, seems, seems, certainly, exactly, but, again, easy, easy…[172]. These are types like: Which/but…. no…ah/huh/why? (19 ): Aren’t they cheap?; maybe/ shouldn’t… ah/ why/ ah/ eh/ huh…? (20 ): Are you going to sell it to grandma?; sure / heck / monkey / dry toad… was… what? (21): What is the beauty of that row over there?; fuck / monkey / dry toad…. then… what? (22): If you don’t have enough capital to pay the monster, what should you do?; fuck / monkey / dry toad…. what… that…? (23): What else can be said about this product?; then…was…why/how? (24): If I pay then why do you say this and that?; then…yes…how/how? (25): What if I say that?; then…. why/how…. huh? (26): How do you pay for that?; know…okay? (27): Then when can you buy it?; know…. how…. huh? (28): How can I make you believe me?; how/who/what/why/…no/no? (29): What can be bought without paying the price?; then…. . how/who/what/why/…no/no? (30): How can you challenge if you just sit and sell?; easy/ easy… ah / sure/ or what… ? (31): Do you think it’s easy that I don’t sell anymore or why do you tell me to cheat? seems/ seems/ maybe/ could be/ seems/ seems/ can’t be/…ah/uh/isn’t it? (32): Looks like you don’t want to sell?; how / how / how… can / be? (33): How can I sell you if you pay that?; then…is it + is+ ……. are not? (34): Wouldn’t it be a waste of time to just buy at the right price without paying?; yes+who…but /again/ but…is that so/ is that so/ is that so? (35): Who would say that’s weird?; yes + what… but / again / but again…is that so/? (36): What do you say?; and/again/again…. then…who/how/why/how? (37) Besides, what if I did pay?; and/again/again…. that?(38): Plus, you’ll have to pay it back, but it won’t be lost?…

e/ The compatibility between the implicative modality frame of the interrogative utterance and the content of the response utterance clause of the indirect questioning action.

Besides giving a number of modal expressions that limit the implicative modality framework at the sentence level, we pay attention to two issues: The compatibility between the implicative modality framework in the interrogative utterance and the ND propositional utterances of the utterance. reply in the OSGT. Different from the compatibility between the explicit state framework, the ND of the question and the ND of the answer clause in the PN containing the PN, the PN containing the RR is also based on the frame structure, but the close correspondence is only on a few numbers. only basic elements. That is, there is only a correlation between the discourse modality frame containing the OSGT and the ND response clause of the PN responding to the OSGT.

In relation to that compatibility, both roles point towards an implicit situation, an implicitly identical segment, identical relations, with the corresponding spatial and temporal frames of reference, the The situation is implicitly specified by the speaker and the respondent also responds in that implicitly determined coordinate to avoid the situation of “drums playing forward, trumpet blowing backwards” (unless, of course, people say it). then deny or accept the ideas because they do not appear on the surface of the PN, or in the fallacy), in order to ensure that the information provided by the listener is exactly what the questioner is looking for. implicitly, the new news is implicitly replaced by the unknown. Example (39): M: Why are plums pale today? (implying lower prices); B: If you have pale ears, yes! The price is still the same! (answer on price). The problem of the compatibility between the allegorical modality frame in the interrogative utterance and the content of the response utterance clause of the GT in (39) is expressed in the fact that: the buyer’s intention is shown indirectly, actually the buyer. I want to ask the seller to lower the price.

And the seller answered correctly where the buyer wanted to ask to lower the price, and at the same time, the seller did not agree on the price, so he replied “the price is still the same, sister”. This compatibility also manifests itself as clarifying the respective roles of the elements. When the questioner is the subject of the mood, the listener is the object of receiving and evaluating the mood; On the contrary, when answering, the listener becomes the subject of the modality, the questioner turns into the object of receiving and evaluating the modality.

The problem of incompatibility between the explicit state framework of the interrogative statement containing the manifest OA on the utterance and the ND statement of the answer statement is also manifest on the PN. Back to example (39): M: Why are plums pale today? B: If you have pale ears, yes! The price is still the same! (The problem of incompatibility (39) is expressed in that: the problem that the buyer asked is obviously the case 1: the pale appearance of the plum; and the problem that the seller answered is the case 2: the pale appearance. of people. )

2.3.3. The pragmatic aspect of the utterance containing the OSGT

Any indirect speaking contract must be based on direct speaking contract. So, the direct speech is a necessary condition, while the implicit factor is the sufficient condition, an indispensable element in the meaningful structure of the PN containing the indirect speech.

Maybe you are interested!

2.3.3.1. Context in utterance containing OSGT

Context factors are also analyzed very carefully in the previous section. It plays a big role for GT people to be able to interpret and recognize different types of traffic system.

2.3.3.2. Projection of utterances containing OSGT

The relationship between the PNH and the parts that make up its context is called the projection. Projection of objects plays an important role in communication system, because YNHNH is often vague, not clearly defined on the surface of PN as the explicit meaning of visual system. Projecting objects plays the role of linking language with context to help recipients have a basis for understanding and interpretation.

a. The speaker’s role is to perform the act of projecting the object first. In the communication system, the questioner is not aiming for an extra-real situation (as in the information system), but also towards one or more other non-realistic events. The questioner puts the facts in a certain space and time frame of reference… to create definiteness, clarity, and clarity in the propositional content on the utterance surface, but at the same time to create declarative, determinable, or ambiguous meanings depending on the encoding or decoding mechanism for the OS. That reference helps listeners to locate and identify events related to real-life events that the questioner wants to mention.

The questioner, when creating a question, both self-identifies and self-locates the sub-problems (as the basis, as a support for the explanation mechanism), and must be clear and unambiguous, mainly referring to the problem. the main (main intention) is not explicit and implicit, both must always assign to the respondent the entire coordinate system that is both determined and undefined. The listener must immediately conduct the reference operation to unify the above situation that the questioner has implicitly determined. Therefore, the component that has the effect of guiding the reference, determining the positioning system in the traffic system plays a more important role than the information system. When the reference indication in the question is not clear, the listener cannot answer, is deflected, or has to re-correct the PNH to clearly identify the frame of reference whether explicit or implicit.

b. The role of the respondent in determining the object of the communication system, the listener is not innocent, passive in the projection, but the listener is the important agent to create and interpret it. The respondent must both accept all the objects that are clearly visible on the surface of the utterance, and also accept the hidden objects to ensure the next information (things) he provides.

Regardless of whether he disagrees or agrees, he must definitely understand and accept the hidden object of the speaker first, and then, he has the right to express his own attitude. The co-ordinates of both the floating and the hidden events must coincide with both shoulders. Example (40): M: Looks like this melon came from yesterday? (“Yesterday’s melon” is the first item, followed by the second item, the melon must be old, wilted, soft… not of good quality); B: It’s so hard, why do you hate it? (before expressing objection, the listener is forced to accept the implicit fact that the buyer’s “yesterday melon” is soft and wilted, from that reference and using that reference as the basis, the listener can switch to a new object. )

c. The purpose of the object projection of the traffic system is to help the listeners know what the questioner is talking about, asking about what, about the content that belongs to it implicitly. To ask something about it is to give the referenced thing a certain “theory” about it. The act of projecting in the traffic system combines inference to recognize the intentions, purposes, and things that are referred to through the expression of the object projection.

2.3.3.3. Presupposition (GD) of utterance containing OSGT

As a meaningful component, the content is not explicit. But it is not always known and implicitly accepted by both the speaker and the listener as in the information system, but many cases of the communication system are intentionally violated by both sides to create a “problematic situation” to help listeners recognize, and can interpret. For example (41): M: Why is this grapefruit rough and rough? (buyers asked to criticize, for the purpose of buying cheap, to the CEO: whenever the pomelo is rough, the pomelo is bad); B: But its price is not ridiculous at all! But have you never eaten grapefruit bran peel? (ask for praise, the purpose cannot be sold cheaply, but on the contrary, it must be sold more expensive to correspond to its value, with the CEO: whenever the pomelo is rough, it is bran, a new “brand”, a special type, have quality). Thus, the CEO in the PN containing the operating system for both is not always true about the known- antecedent nature of the message. The transaction system is often built on the wrong CEO, but it is different from the unconscious and unintentional wrong of the information system, which is often built on the wrong CEO intentionally.

The questioner on the one hand implicitly admits that the CEOs are right about the known, on the other hand, also makes false hypotheses about the known, not asking for the unknown (floating on the surface of PN), the objective The purpose is to borrow that unknown (actually already known, no need to know and just old news) to indirectly perform other purposes. The CEO in the PN containing the cognitive system represents the questioner’s trust with the segment of reality reflected in the operating system, based on a CEO that is considered to be true, real and reasonable because it is a necessary condition to create an explicit meaning. , manifesto. The CEO in the PN containing the PN is different, because the question is not sincere, there is no need to answer the old news anymore, so it is not to completely trust the respondent, but to express another implication on the basis of the CEO. always right. This is also the basis of implicit meaning.

The respondent can only answer for the operating system with the following conditions: First, he has completely accepted the CEOs as known contained in the operating system, so he does not answer immediately at the known question point on the surface of PN, but Responding immediately to the unquestioned on the surface of PN, responding to the implicit unknown of PNH, it is considered that the respondent has accepted both the right and the wrong of the CEO. Second, he must determine what the questioner’s unknown is, for that he must deduce-decode. If the unknown is not known, has not been determined to some degree of necessity, do not respond to the act of asking, or answer in the wrong direction.

Third, he clearly defines the known about the unknown, in order to satisfy the information is to fulfill the responsibility for the questioner. However, it is unlikely that the questioner would accept that answer if they found it disadvantageous, or they could refuse to accept responsibility because it is not obvious. This is rarely the case in OST. Going back to example (3, p.21), or example (42), will make this clear:

B: Oh my god, why are you so dressed up…?

M: Do you have to give her a cut to the ladies to dress up?;

B: When did I say that?

The presuppositions in the VA have both compatibility and agreement, and incompatibility and inconsistency between the questioner and the respondent. The compatibility is shown in the fact that the CEO of the questioner’s known is also the CEO of the known of the respondent. The incompatibility shows that the CEO is right for one person but may not be right for the other and vice versa. Therefore, the CEO about what is known to both coincide and not coincide for both roles in the traffic system, is an important criterion to identify the traffic system.

2.3.3.4. Message Structure (CTTB) of the utterance containing the OSGT

a/ The message structure is the information structure in the content side of the PN containing the communication system, which is the way to organize and distribute information – old and new information – both consistent and inconsistent in the question and answer statements. word of the relationship between language and users in terms of pragmatics. The questioner often gives implicitly the missing information, or the reason given by the questioner, just as an excuse because it is already old news, while the new news that he really needs to know is discreetly distributed. , should not be clearly visible on the utterance surface. The act of asking directly has old news that coincides with the presupposition, and the act of asking indirectly is different: Old news – in addition to the scope coincides with the presupposition, it does not coincide with the CEO in that, it mainly coincides with the presupposition. new information on the surface of PN (because the news is new but is actually old news). In the information system, old news has no informational value, it is only the premise of the information system. And the old news in the OSGT has the value of notification right on the surface of the PN.

Breaking news in the traffic system is also valuable mainly in terms of announcements, but it is implicit. The new information in the response PN of the OSGT is, basically, still a response to the hidden new information, rather than the response to the old message emerging on the surface of the PN. For example (43), M: Seems like a monopoly too? (new news: selling both expensive and expensive products); B: The item is unique but the price is not there! (reply by responding to implicit new information, not responding to the buyer’s old news: valuable and complimenting the goods; the “unique” nature of the product means that it is attached: do not touch, Unlike other goods, rare and precious, combining “price is not” with the implication: quarterly but selling cheap… for the purpose of persuasion.

(2) The basis for determining the notification structure of indirect questioning

a/ The surface meaning structure of the utterance containing the OSGT often allows us to identify the old message easily, but the new message does not, because it belongs to the YNHÂ structure.

b/ Based on the response utterance: firstly, based on the relationship between the question utterance and the PN answering, they have a relationship that is both consistent and close, and inconsistent and widespread (many implications, whatever you want to understand), is much different from the TTOS. They shed light on a lot of information (both old and new at the same time). Secondly, the decisive factor for a certain woman to become a responding woman in the traffic system is different from the one in the information system in that the responding woman contains the response information for new information that belongs to the implicit “unknown, need-to-know” part of the user. OST offers, rather than just responds to, old news in an explicit sense. Third, PN’s responses do not depend on many questions, both in content and form. That is, in the information system, the question and answer shows the inconsistency in terms of function, the purpose of communication in the cognitive process is different from the information system. Fourth, the purpose of the question in the traffic policy is not or is unlikely to be answered, to fill in the missing information on the surface of the utterance, but to fill in the missing information elsewhere, in a different emphasis. ; or with the intent of control, want the listener to perform another indirect purpose. Fifth, the purpose of the response is not only to clarify the unknown, but mainly to provide a new message in response to the implied emphasis.

c/ Context: is a main basis and a very necessary condition to help listeners decipher. In most communication systems, the structure of the surface meaning of the question does not allow us to accurately determine old and new news, if not based on the specific communication context. Example (44): B:Are you planning to add one more car?; M: Be understanding! (If not based on context, we cannot know what question (44) asks about in objective reality; Place of conversation: market; object of communication: buyer and seller; form of purchase selling: wholesale, buy wholesale; the seller asks the buyer: if you want to buy one more batch of goods, you must pay the old money …; close one more prescription is old news and do not want to sell, asking for money is new news).

(3) The message structure element of indirect questioning

a/ The known piece of information: we need to distinguish, the old news of direct questioning is the presupposition of the known, the fulcrum of the focus of the question, the basis for asking the question, the premise of the message structure. . In indirect questioning, the old news not only has the presupposition of the known, but it also includes the things that are explicitly asking on the surface of the utterance (because the new news is really old news, or not true). news, or ask without sincere conditions, without the listener having to answer that “new news”, but actually asking and needing to respond in other news).