Communication semiotics

1. Sign theory.

Let's start with a short story borrowed from a popular Australian radio station about communication in the modern world and advertising symbols:

It seemed that every two or three miles, they met the same huge poster on billboards at the curb. It was a photograph of a slightly wavy sheet of purple silk, in which there was a single slit, as if the material had been slashed with a razor. There were no words in the ad except a government warning about the dangers of smoking.

This ubiquitous image, appearing at regular intervals of time, was both annoying and intriguing. Remembering university lectures, Robin decided to do a 'semiotic analysis of the deep structure', which the soft surface of silk hid. For her, it was a kind of mystery.

To solve it, it was necessary to know that there was such a brand of cigarettes: Silk Cut (full. Silk - in a figurative sense also: gentle - cut). Shimmering silk with voluptuous curves and sensual texture clearly tried to symbolize the female body. Even more obvious was the oblong incision, behind which a lighter shade fabric was visible. Advertising appealed to both sensual and sadistic impulses: arousing a desire to both mutilate the female body and penetrate it.

A friend of Robin, Vick, who was riding with her, listened to her analysis with a smirk and a sense of offended dignity. He smoked other cigarettes, but seemed to sense that Robin’s analysis was a threat to his whole life philosophy:

- You have a shift in your head, so you see all this nonsense. This is a completely innocent piece of cloth!

- Then why do you need it? Who needs to use cloth to advertise cigarettes?

- Well, they are so called! Silk Cut. It's just an image of the name and that's it!

“Well, now imagine that instead there would be a roll of silk cut in half.” Would it fit?

- Well, yes, why not?

“It would be like a male organ cut in half.”

- But why?! Why can't you look at things just as they are ?!

- We? Who do you mean?

- Yes, you, 'intellectuals'. You are always looking for hidden value in things. What for? A cigarette is just a cigarette, and a silk shred is just a silk shred! Why can't you leave things alone ?!

- If things are represented on a certain image, they acquire additional meanings. Signs are never 'innocent'. This is known from semiotics.

- Of the seven what?

- Semiotics is the science of signs.

- Idiot is your science! Depravity, and only!

Since ancient times, it is possible to distinguish two principal currents in relation to a word, to a verbal sign, to a sign in general. These views can be traced not only in scientific paradigms, but also in naive views of language and communication. But first, let us introduce two terms widely used in linguistics due to the twentieth-century Danish linguist Louis Elmslev: the expression plan and the content of the sign, in a simplified sense (for the verbal language), it is sound and meaning, for other types of communication, it is the outer shell sign (visual image, architectural structure, gesture, deed or event, pictogram, etc.) and - again - the value. Semiotics or semiology, therefore, is the science of meaningful forms, means of expressing meaning.

The naive consciousness in the process of using language does not separate these two planes — expression and content — and this would destroy communication and would make verbal and non-verbal languages ​​inappropriate for use. The hero of the Australian radio story feels a hidden threat to his communicative world. Analysis of human behavior violates this very behavior, just as surgical intervention violates the life of the organism.

The analysis inevitably encounters the two sides of the sign, their interconnection and interrelations. How is it that some form (shaking the air with a human speech apparatus, patterns on a piece of paper, a photograph, a rock image, etc.) may mean something for someone, and this value may influence people's opinions and actions? ? Maybe this value is 'inside' of these characters? The question of meaning is the main and most paradoxical question of the communicative theory and all humanitarian knowledge.

Even ancient philosophers formulated two approaches to the connection of sound and meaning (and the meaning of a word — predominantly a noun or sometimes a verb — was considered the object or action it denotes). The everyday consciousness of the naive user of the communicative system "does not think about it": a silk shred is just a silk shred. Primitive consciousness (this is proved by numerous observations of ethnographers for ritual actions, etc.) does not share not only sounds and meanings, but also identifies an object with a word designating it or another symbol. Think of conspiracies, witchcraft, when acting on symbols is considered capable of changing the status quo.

Many modern people believe in signs: when an associative or traditional connection of objects with people and events (the plan of content) is accepted as a real connection, people believe in the possibility of influencing events, their own destiny, and other people. What is the connection between the black cat crossing your path and you? This connection is a semiotic one: the image of a black cat (plan of expression) is traditionally associated with the possibility of unhappiness (plan of maintenance). But is there any connection between this particular cat and misfortune? As the song says: They say they’re not lucky if the black cat crosses the road, but for now the opposite: only a black cat is not lucky. People "do not get along with the cat" only because of the debris of their consciousness taken by them on trust, without analysis, associations. True, the other does not happen. People just need to live in a mythologized world where the sound and meaning, sign and object are connected, because this bundle in consciousness allows you to organize both the work of consciousness itself and the actions of a person in the outside world. Signs, therefore, are mythological units (myths) that contribute to the organization of human activity. If you begin to analyze them, the myth will collapse, and activity will stop. Therefore, a division of labor occurred in human society: most people do not usually think about it, using signs, only specialists, researchers and communication technologists think.

A sign as a myth is a very economical means. It is not necessary to analyze each time why a particular sound or visual complex refers our consciousness to a specific object or idea. As M. Mak-Luen, a theorist of mass communication, writes, the myth does not limp, but jumps (here it is useful to recall the English expression to jump at conclusions, literally 'jump to conclusions', that is, it comes to conclusions without reasoning). This is not a lack of communication. If you had to reason over every sign, communication would simply stop. Try a few minutes to read the same word, and you will come across a paradoxical phenomenon known in psycholinguistics: weathered semantics. The word will cease to matter to you! So, experimentally, you can prove to yourself the existence of two semiotic plans.

However, this “hasty conclusion” can play a rather negative role: you can be deceived, forcing you to make a quick conclusion, which you could not have done if you decided to think a little longer. Politicians and propagandists especially use this. If a word in everyday consciousness is so closely connected with an object, then sometimes it is possible to present words to the electorate instead of objects and real actions. We can recall the food program of the Central Committee of the CPSU, when it was assumed that manipulation of the words should "feed the people." Such a lack of dissection of the subject and the word, meaning and sound is really predetermined purely technical: it is impossible to use a dissected language. However, a very angry dog ​​is buried in it: the possibility, if not lie, then to mystify, to mislead a naive person regarding the state of things with the help of words.

How is this possible? Let's return to the ancient Greeks. The two theories put forward at that time are still called in Greek today in modern textbooks: φύσει and θέσει (which means by nature and by definition) . That is, words are associated with designated objects (sound with meaning) by natural necessity, almost deterministic natural regularity ( φύσει ). Or, on the contrary: words are not naturally connected with objects in any way, and their meaning is attributed to their sound according to the original agreement, as established ( θέσει ). However, it is immediately worth noting that neither φύσει nor θέσει in their strong versions have been used for a long time, and if you look for truth, it most likely lies in the middle, it remains only to find out exactly how.

If we use the technique known in science reductio ad absurdum (some principle is “brought to the absurd”, that is, it is applied with scrupulous accuracy and thoroughness in all cases), then the theory of φύσει , ultimately leads to the so-called 'paradox of true glasses ': if words and objects are related by nature, and statements with words can be true and untrue, then objects (for example, glasses) can be true and untrue. But this is sheer nonsense, the concept of truth does not apply to glasses.

At the same time, it is in this paragraph that the most deadly weapon of any ideology, propaganda, and advertising is contained. After all, a naive user is really voluntarily mistaken in relation to the natural connection between sound and meaning, word and object (this is called sign motivation: value is motivated by the designated object). For a user of a communicative system, it is more convenient, and even vital, that the word in its activity be directly associated with the subject. And it is here that the public opinion manipulator (sometimes sincerely wishing it to be better) and 'slips' the naive user with the word (manipulator) he needs instead of the subject he needs. There are many examples of this in modern political life and in the past (modern communists in relation to people of retirement age, Lukashenko in relation to nostalgia for the Soviet Union, democrats in a game with national and nationalist vocabulary). Of course, there are still a lot of threads in the deception strategy, however, the basis and the very possibility of deception is provided by the non-coincidence of the intuition of the naive user regarding the motivation of the sign with the real unrelatedness of meaning with the sound, the principle non-motivated sign .

The theory of θέσει , despite the apparent opposite, is also represented in the mythologized consciousness of the naive user. Most non-linguists are convinced that the rules in the language are established by someone, and linguists are engaged in the development of these rules, linguistics is the science of how to speak correctly. This myth is reflected in a special genre of 'letters to the editor' in which the authors protest against a word, etc., 'complain' to the newspaper (in English this is called complaint tradition ). It must be said that this is only one of the manifestations of one of the greatest misconceptions of mankind, concerning all the so-called 'humanitarian knowledge'. In humanitarian knowledge, as is well known, the subject and the object of research seem to be 'coincide' in one person - man. There is a temptation to impose our vision on the knowable world, and even to make this world live according to laws invented and implemented by human will (in sociology this is called voluntarism). A similar temptation arises when exploring the world of the extra-human (physical), but there it is easier to get rid of it. Here, in the field of humanitarian knowledge, it turns out that language and other communicative and social systems are my property, man, which means I can do everything I want with it. However, carriers of such opinions do not take into account one, but a very significant factor: will the other participants in the communication process agree with their opinions and innovations, even simpler: will they understand them? Of course, the subject (person) and object (person) in humanitarian knowledge coincide, but, first, these are different roles of a person (we will talk about this separately later), and secondly, here we mean an abstract, aggregate person, a separate the individual is only a human unit, and cannot claim to be a representation of the whole human community or even of a separate social group. He will not be able to impose his own rules on the use of language to other individuals (at least, immediately, bloodless and economical). The situation is similar in other humanitarian systems: in the system of economic relations, maybe I want to have a lot of money, but my neighbor does not give it to me for nothing. As in the economic system (inflation, etc.), in the system of language activity there are patterns that are not dependent on the will of the individual, that is, those that are called 'objective'. It is these patterns that are interesting to the scientific study of communicative systems, in which it is not the 'textbook rules' that are studied, but the intuitions of naive users. This, however, does not exclude a conscious impact on the language and norms of communicative behavior ( normotetics is the establishment of norms, the second part of this word is associated with the Greek root θέσει ).

As we see, neither the theory of φύσει , nor the theory of θέσει in their pure form can provide an exhaustive answer to the question of the relationship between word and thing, sound and meaning, plan of expression and plan of the content of a sign in various communication systems. Modern semiotics as its main principle puts forward the thesis about the principal non-motivated sign, its arbitration . This means that there is no necessary, fundamental connection between sound and value. It should be recognized that this thesis can also be found in the domestic consciousness: in the adage Though you call it a pot, do not put it in the stove. The principle of non-motivated sign is the first fundamental law of semiotics, linguistics and communication theory.

The other side of the sign is its opposite property, that is, its motivation, its internal form , etc. The combination of these two principles must be understood dialectically, but a sign, as an intermediary between the world and man, the sphere of objects and the sphere of meanings, and cannot but be influenced by these two sides in all respects. The arbitrariness of a sign is its dynamic side, which determines the very possibility of its communicative use and changes in communication systems. Arbitrary transfer of meaning is already done in the starting point of semiosis (sign-making, creating a sign), in use aliquis pro aliquo (a Latin expression that serves as the 'motto' of semiotics, it means: something instead of something). Motivation is a conservative, normothetical side, which determines the relative stability of the picture of the world in language and communication systems as a whole.

The arbitrariness of the sign is not absolute and not relative, but it is principled that it does not matter what function of designation is used to determine which side of the object will be taken as the basis for semiosis (a common linguistic example: Russian strawberry, German Erdbeer from Erde = earth , English strawberry from straw = straw , etc.), but the fact that this side was taken remains as the norm for a certain historical moment (period). The solution to this contradiction is possible with the introduction of the time parameter and the position of the user - the sender or recipient of the message. Before using (creating) a mark, the sender has a field of possible choices, after using (creating) a mark, this is already a fact to be interpreted by the recipient. It is possible to depict the dynamic aspect of the relationship between the motivation and arbitration of the sign graphically:

The problem of the relationship between words and things, words and meanings, linguistic sign and meaning has generated and generates a lot of disputes and discussions.

2. Sign and sign system.

In semiotics, linguistics and communication theory for

the study of iconic relationships is used to use the so-called 'Frege triangle'.

Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), a German scientist, one of the founders of mathematical logic, wrote about the sign: “When using a sign, we want to say something not about a sign, but the main thing, as a rule, is its meaning”.

The Frege triangle can also be used in a wider sense to denote a person’s connections with the world around him:

All life and activity of man and humanity takes place within the framework of this triangle. The three sides of the Frege triangle give three sections of semiotics: semantics (meaning), syntactics (sign), pragmatics (man).

The sign is not born suddenly, in nature there are opportunities for its occurrence. The interaction of objects and creatures can occur directly, or they can be mediated. There are three types of signs according to their proximity to the original subject: signs, signals and actual signs. Colour овоща или фрукта является признаком зрелости или свежести (и наоборот). Дым сигнализирует о наличии пожара. Знак выполняет функцию замещения предмета.

Природные знаки не являются интенциональными, преднамеренно употребленными. Человеку также свойственны непреднамеренные знаки: дрожание рук выдает волнение, покраснение щек – стыд и т.п. Хороший коммуникатор по внешнему виду собеседника вполне способен предсказать ход разговора и его результат, и даже скрытые намерения другого коммуниканта. В то же время, б у льшая часть человеческих знаков – интенциональные знаки , то есть, они употребляются преднамеренно, направлены на какой-либо предмет.

По степени отношения к означаемому выделяют иконические, индексальные и символические знаки:

• Иконические знаки – образы, они имеют естественное сходство с обозначаемым объектом, хотя и достаточно условное (икона, картина, фотография).
• Индексальные знаки указывают на объект (указание пальцем, стрелкой, окриком).
• Символические знаки условны, не связаны с объектом, метафоричны, замещают обозначаемый объект в дискурсе и мысли (слова, некоторые символы-аллегории: орел, осел, медведь и т.п.).

В дальнейшем русский ученый С.О.Карцевский (1884-1955), развивая идею знака, ввел понятие асимметричного дуализма . Означаемое и означающее связываются только на мгновение, каждое из них может иметь свою историю развития. Так объясняется, почему в истории знаков, в диахронии изменяется их внешняя форма (например, фонетический облик слова: древнеанглийское hlafweord и современное lord, значение почти то же самое), хотя знак может не терять при этом своего значения. Сравните также разные шрифтовые изображения, например, звука [а] – это вариация в синхронии :

А а А а À à but BUT BUT А а А а А а А а

À à А а а а а а а A a À à A a A a

Так же можно объяснить, почему, при неизменном означающем, значение (означаемое) изменяется в истории, то есть, в диахроническом плане (например, свастика как символ успеха в Германии тридцатых годов и как символ постыдного прошлого в современности), или одно и то же означающее в синхронии может иметь несколько значений (например, слово ключ: инструмент для открывания замков и музыкальный знак регистра).

You can often find a naive glance at a sign that resembles a primitive non-separation of a sign and object, signified and signified. Many people believe that signs have an inner, innate, 'true', 'correct' meaning, that there are 'bad' and 'good' signs. They are right only in a certain sense. The mark does receive an evaluative interpretation, but only from the point of view of the entire system, code, language that the user and his social group apply. Compare the spelling of some words in the Russian text and the Belarusian translation: You, professor , your will, invented something awkward ! // You, great-grandfather , your will, ala is not nadt folding prydumalі ! (М.Булгаков. Мастер и Маргарита. Перевод А.Жука). Схожие слова близкородственного языка кажутся искажением в другом языке, а его носители – 'неграмотными'. Наивные пользователи языка часто высказывают 'странные' мнения: Украинский – это такой язык, который был специально придуман, чтобы смешить людей; и наоборот: в постсоветской Украине националисты считают русский язык вульгарным и грубым, запрещая исполнение песен на русском.

В наивных взглядах нарушается принцип системной конгруэнтности (соответствия, совместимости): люди пытаются интерпретировать знаки, принадлежащие другой системе, другому коду, другому языку, через посредство своей собственной системы, своего языка, своей культуры. Нельзя быть грамотным или неграмотным, культурным или некультурным вообще, можно вести себя правильно или неправильно только с точки зрения определенного культурного кода, языка, семиотической системы, то есть, системы условностей . Если человек, скажем, кладет ноги на стол или улыбается в официальной обстановке, то это может быть вовсе не от отсутствия воспитания – а может быть, он американец? Если мы видим свастику на мавзолее Эль-Регистан в Самарканде, то из этого вовсе не следует, что древний народ, построивший этот памятник архитектуры, был последователем Адольфа Гитлера.

Символы сами по себе, без знаковой и культурной среды, без сообщества, использующего их по условленным негласным законам, ничего не значат. В то же время не зря говорят, что символы правят миром. Вспомните Гудвина, Великого и Ужасного, из Волшебника Изумрудного Города. За этим символом скрывался тщедушный человечек, случайно попавший во власть, по своим качествам далеко не способный править народом. А ему верили и его боялись! Но и любой современный политик выступает на политической арене не как биологический индивид, а как имидж, символ, миф. И многие верят, надеются, боятся! Восприятие наивным сознанием символа как реальности некоторые исследователи назвали семиотическим идеализмом.

Goodwin could expose the "aliens" - Allie and her friends. This confirms the pattern pointed out by Yu.S. Stepanov : an outside observer sees one level of the semiotic system more. In this case, outsiders to the political system of the Emerald City saw the symbol where the inhabitants thought they were dealing with reality. V. von Humboldt also expressed a similar idea about language and culture: “Each nation has its own concept of nature” and “Language describes a circle around a person, which can be left only if you enter another similar circle”.

A cultural and linguistic circle around a person and a community of people is an intermediary between them and the (hostile or not) environment. The conservative function of communicative systems that protects the norm within a circle, in fact, contributes to their survival. The question of borders, therefore, is also a semiotic question: there are no state borders in nature.

The work of L. von Bertalanffy , the biologist who developed the concept of a system and the typology of systems, is connected with the idea of ​​a systemic and systemic interaction . In the General Theory of Systems, open systems are defined (import and export of elements and structures are carried out) and closed systems . Actually closed systems are hardly possible (there would be no communication with them), therefore they talk about conditionally closed systems. Language and other communication systems can be considered conditionally closed systems, since, firstly, they live according to their own internal laws, and secondly, they never import elements and forms of other systems.

Phenomena such as borrowing foreign words (between two language systems) or sound imitation of the animal world (between language and the world) cannot be considered as the import of matter or form. In the first case, both the meaning and the sound of a foreign language word are interpreted by the available means of the receiving language (for example, there is no English sound [w] in the Western word, and similar sounds are not English phonemes from the word western !). The host language translates the sign by its own means. If we are talking about onomatopoeia, then only a naive person can believe that a cat makes sounds (corresponding to Russian phonemes) from the word meow, and a dog - from the word woof-woof. how then to be with 'English-speaking' dogs, saying bow-wow ?

The elements of culture, like any other signs, are also not borrowed in the semiotic aspect. Although in their material it is just possible to export and import, but even here there are problems of translation (other mains voltage for household appliances, other traditions of culinary semiotics for food, differences in the traditions of clothes and life semiotics, etc.). Such a significant element of clothing as jeans, which had the meaning of " casual clothing " in the original culture, was a symbol of freedom, youth protest and antisocial behavior for quite a long time. the supermarket, shop and other realities of the trade sphere still cannot adapt to the communicative environment of post-Soviet Russia. In trade institutions that borrow symbols of the Western consumer society, they have a different communicative content. On the one hand, many Russian supermarkets are just kiosks spread out on shelves, many lounges huddle on two or three square meters. In this case, we see a clear shift of the signified, the adoption of the desired (signified in the original system) as real. The reality in the borrowing system is not that, even the economic moments speak about it: prices in large supermarkets in the West are always much lower than in small shops and especially in kiosks due to the greater sales and turnover. In Russia, the picture is just the opposite: to the inability to trade and put the business on a broad base adds an irrepressible desire to be called beautifully, "in a foreign way." The same kind of craving for foreign names, often written by the troechnik’s hand: Goodb a y, America; Second H e nd (remember that bay in English is “bay”, and hen is “chicken”), etc. The plan of expression and the plan of content, it would seem, of similar signs move relative to each other in different semiotic systems in their own way.

And finally, not only the connection of the signified and signifying in a sign, or sign with an object, is not eternal. The finality of the creation of the sign itself is not eternal. The sign itself can become a signifier, pointing to a new signifier. Yu.S.Stepanov thus explains the emergence of stylistics and rhetoric. If there is a choice of at least two signs, then the fact of choice takes on socio-cultural significance and can be used to influence the interlocutor. So, for example, the word face means the corresponding part of the human body. But you can say the face, and you can muzzle. The choice of the second sign has an additional social and cultural significance: the desire to offend, the manifestation of bad manners, etc. Stylistics, in his opinion, consists of signs, signs, signs of the second level of significance:

French semiologist R. Barth in the same way explains the appearance of the myth. The myth is a secondary sign, which means the primary two-sided sign (the primary sign is a bear means an animal, a secondary sign means force). The myth of the strength of the Russian bear is used in political discourse in the symbolism of the “Bear” political party. Then - you can use the name of the party party as a symbol of strength, faith in a better future of the country, in the ability of the authorities to fulfill the aspirations of the people.

You can summarize by formulating the basic laws or principles of semiotics:

• principle of principal arbitration of a mark
• the principle of system-historical conditionality of the mark,
• the principle of asymmetric dualism,
• the principle of the boundary of the semiotic system
• the principle of multi-level semiosis.

As Yu.S.Stepanov writes, the basis of all uses of language signs of any language are three elementary functions. These functions do not belong to a specific language, but to the language in general. The three elementary functions are to

name the objects of the real world ( nomination ),

to bring the name into relationship with each other ( predication ),

localize the named in space and time ( location ). That is, the three named functions correspond to three aspects of general semiotics: semantics, syntactics and pragmatics.

The semantics correlates the signs of the language with the object of nomination ( denotation for a language mark or a referent for a speech mark).

Syntactics (syntax) relates the signs to each other within the framework of a linear sequence ( sentences in language and utterances in speech). Pragmatics shows the relationship between the sign and the user of the language (the use of signs, the sentence is related to the chronotope of the user I-here-now and his attitude to what is expressed and the connection of the latter with reality - modality ).

The three main semiotic functions or even the three main semiotic spheres derive from the semiotic model of communication. A sign is an intermediary between a user of a language and objects of the outside world, and a sign system is an intermediary between the outside world, the environment as a whole and the user:

USER - SIGN - OBJECT

The first to use the terms semantics, syntactics, pragmatics, American researcher C. Morris, a follower of Charles S. Pierce .

Charles Morris (Charles W. Morris, 1901-) called the relevant aspects of symbolic relationships semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics.

According to Yu.S.Stepanov, science in its development follows the sides of the object being studied. As science advances, interests, paradigms (systems of views and schools), fashion replace each other. The current state of the humanities allows us to conclude that the interest in the user of communicative systems, in man, in the pragmatic aspect is prevalent.

Pragmatism (pragmatism, pragmatism) is understood in everyday life - and not only in everyday life - the usefulness, practicality, efficiency of a particular idea, concept, policy, method, etc. as a criterion of their merits. Approaches to achieving a specific result in business, politics or public relations are often called pragmatic. Quite often this term acquires additional positive connotations (for example, in statements about American business and American politics). The word itself goes back to the Greek πράγμα 'action, deed'. The Greek historian Polybius (died in 118 BC) at one time called his writings pragmatic, since he believed that they were intended to educate readers and be useful to them. In philosophy and psychology, this term was used in the sense referring to experience, activity. After Pierce and Morris, pragmatics, as we have already said, call the attitude of the user to the signs he uses, and the corresponding section of semiotics.

Compare: I declare war on you, and in 1812 the war began. If the second sentence corresponds to the standard notion of a statement 'denoting' or 'reflecting' reality, then the first one coincides with the very action of the beginning of the war, is the implementation of this action. Compare more: He studies well and I promise to study well (= to the action of the promise), He was cursed by his descendants and Damn you (= to the action of the curse).

Further development of this problem led Searle to the conclusion that not only performatives do not denote reality, but other types of speech acts are not directly correlated with reality. The concept of meaning as a direct reflection of reality or as its presentation, substitution, representation was replaced by the concept of intentionality, intention, intention, implication by the speaker, the direction of his speech on the subject. Any human action (including speech act) originates in his consciousness, in his intentions, desires, attitudes, etc.

The speech act consists in pronouncing the speaker a statement addressed to the listener in a certain situation and for a specific purpose (compare with the Lasswell formula: Who says what with what effect ). That is, as a result of a speech act, the speaker influences the listener in terms of a change in his opinion, mental or mental state, impulse to action, etc. This intermediary between the sender of the message and its purpose, the speech act, splits into three or four components:

• the act of pronouncing ( locus ),
• act of indication and prediction ( proposition )
• the act of giving communicative ( illocutive ) power to the statement : order, promise, statement, question, etc.,
• further allocated perlocution : the effect on the addressee.

Although in a real statement all these aspects are merged together, they can still be distinguished as a result of analysis and observation: the same propositional act can correspond to different illocutionary acts ( He goes to the bathhouse. Does he go to the bathhouse? Would he go to the bathhouse! ); the same propositional and illocutive act may correspond to different locative acts ( I promise to study well. I promise to be an exemplary student. ).

Illocutive acts are part of the language in general, and not only specific languages. By its illocutionary force, there are five categories of illocutionary acts:

• assertives (to assert, deny, answer, object, etc.),
• directives (ask, order, order, plead, allow, invite, advise),
• commissioners (to promise; to give a vow, a vow, an oath, a word; to vouch, to adopt an action plan),
• expressive (to thank, congratulate, apologize, condole),
• declarations (give a name, baptize, declare husband and wife, issue a decree, resign).

In the future, some researchers have noticed that speech acts do not exist by themselves, but are connected in adjacent statements, in the text. You can even talk about a single textual act, correlated with the overall strategy of the text associated with the dominant goal, the intention of the text . Such a common or dominant goal of the text is sometimes called the pragmatic focus of the text act.

For example, advertising text (verbal and non-verbal components) can perform various functions, combining assertives (product information, including images), commissions (for example, quality or safety guarantees), expressiveness (expressing admiration for the product and its qualities). including through the aesthetics of the visual series) and other speech acts. In this case, the pragmatic focus of advertising is always the directive: Go and buy!

In addition to the main difference - in illocutive force (goal) - speech acts in the Searle classification also differ in the direction of correspondence between words and the world: I affirm that M. closed the door - from words to the world; I ask M. to close the door, I promise to close the door - from the world to the words (to make the reality correspond to the words). Assertives: from words to the world, from directives and commissioners: from the world to words (examples earlier), from expressive: there is no direction ( Sorry that I stepped on your foot - true in advance, while the truth is not essential for this illocutionary purpose) ; declarations: double direction ( you are dismissed - the boss makes the subordinate become dismissed: from the world to words, while the words themselves being spoken begin to correspond to reality: from words to the world).

The classification of Searle's speech acts appeared as an answer to one of the most important questions when studying the functioning of language in society: How many ways are there of using language? Searle, whose article first appeared in the journal Language in Society , reformulated this vague question, taking into account the basic unit of analysis, the speech act: How many categories of illocutionary acts exist? As can be seen, pragmatic analysis is applicable not only to the verbal language, but also to any other communication systems.

In the future, Searle's classification was refined and detailed. The interpretation of the so-called indirect speech acts was added, since there were cases when one illocutionary act was carried out indirectly, at the expense of another. This time, Searle wondered: In what way can a speaker express, with the help of a statement, not only what it directly means, but also something else? This immediately suggests "additional" questions: about ambiguity and hypocrisy (cf. English speak, expression from the famous novel by George Orwell 1984 ), implication, sincerity and deception with the help of language, etc.

Language, by its very nature, is doomed to a lie, that is, to express something through something else, not connected with the subject designation by nature, 'non-true' in the eyes of ordinary consciousness. That is why, even though certain arbitrary combinations of the sign and the denotation (and even the referent) are fixed in social practice, there is always the possibility of a pragmatic and then semantic shift.

Metaphor (transfer of meaning, in a broad sense), being one of the engines of the process of semiosis (we will call semiosis the process of the genesis of a semiotic system and the creation of sign relations.), without which language as a self-developing system of adaptation to the environment would soon cease to exist, at the same time it is and a source of – sometimes forced – deception.

As Searle writes, many of the indirect speech acts are fixed in the language. For example, Can you reach the salt? 'Please pass the salt', verb. Can you get salt? - is unlikely to be perceived as a question about the ability or length of the addressee's arms, moreover, it requires great ingenuity to imagine situations in which these statements would not be requests. More examples: I'd be much obliged if you would pay me the money back soon. Do you want to hand me that hammer over there on the table? Why don't you be quiet? It would be a good idea if you gave me the money now. How many times have I told you (must I tell you) not to eat with your fingers? I would appreciate it if you could make less noise. The examples given, as Searle writes, do not have motivating power as part of their meaning. These sentences combine two illocutionary forces in certain contexts and become idiomatic without being idioms in the proper sense of the word. In each of these cases, the speaker expresses a motive (secondary illocutionary purpose) through a question or statement (primary illocutionary purpose).

Secondary illocutionary acts play a significant role in ethics, speech influence, and ordinary everyday speech use. It is very important to take them into account when studying another language, since the methods of idiomaticity in the expression of universal types of speech acts (and indirect expression, among other things) are of an idioethnic, specific linguistic nature. American teachers often say that Russians’ speech (in English, of course) is too straightforward. If you do not take into account the foreigner factor, a person may feel pressure, be offended, afraid, etc., i.e. the result of communication and its success may be questioned. English language courses include special sections aimed at softening directness, for example, Tips for making English less direct: Using would, could, might to make what you say more tentative, to take away the dogmatic tone of many statements ( That is unacceptable :: That would be unacceptable ); Presenting your view as a question, not a statement ( That is too late :: Would that be too late? ); Using a grammatical negative to make a suggestion more open and therefore more negotiable ( Isn't that too late? Wouldn't that be too late? ), etc.

One of the practical conclusions that Searle draws from his study of indirect speech acts is the following maxim of speech communication: Speak idiomatically unless there is a special reason not to speak idiomatically. He gives an example: if you say in an archaic style Knowest thou him who called himself Richard Nixon? (non-idiomatic) then it will not be treated the same as a regular Do you know Richard Nixon question.

This maxim of verbal communication complements the list of maxims of communication proposed by another famous researcher Paul Grice, among which, first of all, the principle of cooperativeness of verbal communication, the principle of cooperation, stands out.

According to some researchers, the Searle approach complements the popular model of speech communication of the Prague School and Jacobson. Jacobson's model does not contain a goal component, although the goal or teleological (from the Greek τέλος, τελέιον - goal) aspect of speech communication was constantly emphasized by the Prague School as one of the main ones within their paradigm. At the same time, the goal was equated with the function of linguistic means, while the pragmatic aspect itself remained behind the scenes for a long time. The works of Grice, Strawson and Searle opened a new direction, which is sometimes called intentionalism, since they take into account the original intention (intention, subjective meaning) of the speaker and the interpretation (to a lesser extent) of the listener, the impact on him. Grice's 'pivotal' article was called Meaning, which in English primarily means 'implying' rather than 'meaning'. By meaning, Grice meant precisely the subjective meaning of the speaker, his intention, the intention to obtain a certain result with the help of an utterance, thanks to the listener’s awareness of this intention: I will talk to your parents - maybe assertive, commissive, even indirect directives.