Age-appropriate, pragmatic content in personal correspondence

https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n1.2005

Authors

  • Yoqubova Sevara Baxtiyorovna Basic Doctoral Student, Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature named after Alisher Navoi, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Keywords:

communicative purpose, dialecticism, linguistic expertise, non-literary element, pragmatic content

Abstract

This article examines vulgarism and dialectisms, which are considered to be elements of vulgarity in personal correspondence. In the linguistic examination conducted in anonymous cases, the form, frequency, and pragmatic content of the use of non-literary elements also play a leading role in determining the age of a person. The article examines the pragmatic direction, communicative purpose, frequency of use of non-literary elements in the correspondence of individuals aged 17-27 on average, and concludes. A survey was also conducted among school-age students to study the influence of the family environment on the use of non-literal lexical elements in a child’s speech. The nature of the use of non-verbal elements in personal correspondence depends on neurological, psychological, and sociological factors. Unethical behavior can also be related to a person's emotional state. Some personal correspondence uses obscene lexical elements, some positive and some negative. Speech situation and communicative purpose also played an important role in the use of non-literary lexical items.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive psychology, 17(4), 391-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90014-3

Emelyanova, O. N. (2003). Extra-literary vocabulary. In Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language (pp. 33-36).

Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of pragmatics, 31(7), 919-929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00100-3

Helland, W. A., Lundervold, A. J., Heimann, M., & Posserud, M. B. (2014). Stable associations between behavioral problems and language impairments across childhood–The importance of pragmatic language problems. Research in developmental disabilities, 35(5), 943-951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.02.016

Jing, F. (2017). Investigating intentionality of linguistic landscapes from the multilingual commercial signs. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 3(5), 46-52. Retrieved from https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/ijllc/article/view/222

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness:: Current research issues. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), 193-218.

Korovushkin, VP (2005). Osnovi kontrastyvnoi sociolektolohii [Basics of contrastive sociolectology].

László, J. (1990). Images of social categories vs. images of literary and non-literary objects. Poetics, 19(3), 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(90)90024-Y

Likhachev, D.S. (1935). Features of the primitive primitivism of thieves' speech .

Marie, C., Kujala, T., & Besson, M. (2012). Musical and linguistic expertise influence pre-attentive and attentive processing of non-speech sounds. Cortex, 48(4), 447-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.006

McDonald, S. (1993). Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: Ability to meet the informational needs of the listener. Brain and language, 44(1), 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1993.1003

Meiser, T., Klauer, K. C., & Naumer, B. (2001). Propositional reasoning and working memory: The role of prior training and pragmatic content. Acta Psychologica, 106(3), 303-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00055-X

Musulmonova, K. (2021). The content of the stages of analysis of linguistic expertise. Society and Innovation, 2 (1 / S), 227-232.

Musulmonova, K. (2021). The Process Of Linguistic Examination On Anonymous Letters. Zbírnik naukovix prats SCIENTIA .

Pratiwi, V. U., & Rohmadi, M. (2021). Pragmatic approach to Indonesian speaking skills for student vocational high schools. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 7(4), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v7n4.1795

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for specific purposes, 13(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2

Schmidt, S. J. (1980). Fictionality in literary and non-literary discourse. Poetics, 9(5-6), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90005-4

Skovorodnikov, A.P. (2014). Effective verbal communication (basic competencies).

Snedeker, J., Geren, J., & Shafto, C. L. (2012). Disentangling the effects of cognitive development and linguistic expertise: A longitudinal study of the acquisition of English in internationally-adopted children. Cognitive Psychology, 65(1), 39-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.01.004

Published

2021-12-18

How to Cite

Baxtiyorovna, Y. S. (2021). Age-appropriate, pragmatic content in personal correspondence. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(1), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n1.2005

Issue

Section

Research Articles