Teoria działań komunikacyjnych o podstawach metapragmatycznych
Model percepcyjny
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/LV.20.2025.39.01Słowa kluczowe:
działania komunikacyjne, komunikacja werbalna i niewerbalna, akty mowy, mowa zależna i niezależna, metapragmatykaAbstrakt
THEORY OF COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES BASED ON METAPRAGMATICS: A PERCEPTUAL MODEL
The article presents a theory of communication activities based on metapragmatic research aimed at discovering what can be learned about language and communication from the statements of language users themselves, that is by using the reflective function of natural language (Caffi 1994; Lucy 1993; Kádár, Haugh 2013; Culpeper, Haugh 2014; Haugh 2018; Verschueren 2021). The presented theory was formulated as a result of analytical work on the Polish-language Corpus of Narration about Communication (KNOK). This corpus was created as a result of an experimental study in which participants told interviewers film scenes depicting communication activities in various modalities (Heliasz-Nowosielska 2021, 2023).
The main novelty of the theory, which is a response to the shortcomings of the existing approaches, is the claim that the model of communication activities is perceptual by nature, and the implementation of activities and their possible qualifications depend on the preferences of the users reporting them, and therefore may be divergent and discussed by the people reporting the activities themselves. Therefore, the identification and description of communication activities is only possible by discovering various dependencies between the communication activities carried out and the statements and profiles of various language users who reported these activities.
However, it is not the case, as is assumed in most theories, that a researcher, guided by his or her expert knowledge, can describe the rules for implementing specific activities or indicate their unequivocal exponents or markers.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
Austin J.L., 1962, How To Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar
Austin J.L., 1993, Mówienie i poznawanie. Rozprawy i wykłady filozoficzne, tłum. B. Chwedeńczuk, Warszawa.
View in Google Scholar
Awdiejew A., 1983, Klasyfikacja funkcji pragmatycznych, „Polonica” 9, s. 53–88.
View in Google Scholar
Awdiejew A., 1987, Pragmatyczne podstawy interpretacji wypowiedzeń, Kraków.
View in Google Scholar
Awdiejew A., 1999, Leksykon w gramatyce komunikacyjnej, [w:] idem (red.), Gramatyka komunikacyjna, Warszawa–Kraków, s. 133–160.
View in Google Scholar
Awdiejew A., 2004, Gramatyka interakcji werbalnej, Kraków.
View in Google Scholar
Awdiejew A., Habrajska G., 2004, Wprowadzenie do gramatyki komunikacyjnej, t. 2, Łask.
View in Google Scholar
Biardzka E., 2014, Przytoczenia w prasie codziennej, Łask.
View in Google Scholar
Bogusławski A., 1977, Problems of the Thematic-Rhematic Structure of Sentences, Warszawa.
View in Google Scholar
Bogusławski A., 2021, Lingwistyczna teoria mowy. Preliminaria, Warszawa. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31338/uw.9788323543169
View in Google Scholar
Bublitz W., Hübler A., 2007, Introducing Metapragmatics in Use, [w:] eidem (red.), Metapragmatics in Use, Amsterdam–Philadelphia, s. 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub
View in Google Scholar
Caffi C., 1994, Metapragmatics, [w:] R.E. Asher (red.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford, s. 2461–2466.
View in Google Scholar
Culpeper J., 2009, The Metalanguage of IMPOLITENESS: Using Sketch Engine to Explore the Oxford English Corpus, [w:] P. Baker (red.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, London–New York, s. 64–86.
View in Google Scholar
Culpeper J., Marti L., Mei M., Nevala M., Schauer G., 2010, Cross-cultural Variation in the Perception of Impoliteness: A study of Impoliteness Events Reported by Students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey, „Intercultural Pragmatics” 7, nr 4, s. 597–624, https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.027
View in Google Scholar
Culpeper J., Haugh M., 2014, Metapragmatics, [w:] eidem (red.), Pragmatics and the English Language, Basingstoke, s. 235–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-39391-3_8
View in Google Scholar
Culpeper J., Haugh M., Johnson D.E., 2017, (Im)politeness: Metalinguistic Labels and Concepts in English, [w:] R. Giora, M. Haugh (red.), Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives, Berlin–Boston, s. 135–148, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-008
View in Google Scholar
Culpeper J., O’Driscoll J., Hardaker C., 2019, Notions of Politeness in Britain and North America, [w:] E. Ogiermann, P.G.C. Blitvich (red.), From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives, Cambridge, s. 175–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182119.008
View in Google Scholar
Danielewiczowa M., 1996, O znaczeniu zdań pytajnych w języku polskim. Charakterystyka struktury tematyczno-rematycznej wypowiedzeń interrogatywnych, Warszawa.
View in Google Scholar
Danielewiczowa M., 2002, Wiedza i niewiedza. Studium polskich czasowników epistemicznych, Warszawa.
View in Google Scholar
Franck D., 1984, Speaking about Speech Acts, „Journal of Pragmatics” 8, nr 1, s. 87–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90065-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90065-1
View in Google Scholar
Haugh M., 2018, Corpus-based Metapragmatics, [w:] A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider, W. Bublitz (red.), Methods in Pragmatics, Berlin–Boston, s. 619–643, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-024
View in Google Scholar
Haugh M., Culpeper J., 2020, The Metalinguistics of Offence in (British) English: A Corpus-based Metapragmatic Approach, „Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict” 9, s. 185–214, https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
View in Google Scholar
Heliasz C., 2015, On Representations of Communication in the English and the Polish Language, „Issledovanij po slavânskoj lingvistike” 20, nr 1, s. 77–94.
View in Google Scholar
Heliasz-Nowosielska C., 2016, Granice interpretacji lingwistycznej w badaniach nad komunikacją niewerbalną, „Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego” LXII, s. 97–109.
View in Google Scholar
Heliasz-Nowosielska C., 2021, Multimodalność w relacjach z działań komunikacyjnych, „Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego” LXXVII, s. 139–152, https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.6868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.6868
View in Google Scholar
Heliasz-Nowosielska C., 2023, (Multi)modalność w narracjach o komunikacji. Relacjonowanie działań komunikacyjnych a ich werbalne i niewerbalne sposoby realizacji, Warszawa. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31338/uw.9788323559788
View in Google Scholar
Kádár D.Z., Haugh M., 2013, Understanding Politeness, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717
View in Google Scholar
Karpiński M., 2006, Struktura i intonacja polskiego dialogu zadaniowego, Poznań.
View in Google Scholar
Lucy J.A., 1993, Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines, [w:] idem (red.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, Cambridge, s. 9–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.003
View in Google Scholar
Lyons J., 1977, Semantics, t. 1–2, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165693
View in Google Scholar
Schneider K.P., 2012, Appropriate Behaviour across Varieties of English, „Journal of Pragmatics” 44, nr 9, s. 1022–1037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.015
View in Google Scholar
Searle J.R., 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
View in Google Scholar
Searle J.R., 1975, A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts, [w:] K. Gunderson (red.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, t. 7, Minneapolis, s. 344–369.
View in Google Scholar
Taylor Ch., 2016, Mock Politeness in English and Italian: A Corpus-assisted Metalanguage Analysis, Amsterdam–Philadelphia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.267
View in Google Scholar
Verschueren J., 2021, Reflexivity and Meta-awareness, [w:] M. Haugh, D.Z. Kádár, M. Terkourafi (red.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, Cambridge, s. 117–139, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.008
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1973, Akty mowy, [w:] M.R. Mayenowa (red.), Semiotyka i struktura tekstu, Wrocław, s. 201–219.
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1983, Genry mowy, [w:] T. Dobrzyńska, E. Janus (red.), Tekst i zdanie. Zbiór studiów, Wrocław, s. 125–137.
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1985, A Semantic Metalanguage for a Crosscultural Comparison of Speech acts and Speech genres, „Language in Society” 14, nr 4, s. 491–514, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011489
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1986, Analiza lingwistyczna aktów mowy jako potencjalny klucz do kultury, [w:] A. Brodzka, M. Hopfinger, J. Lalewicz (red.), Problemy wiedzy o kulturze, Wrocław, s. 103–113.
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1987, English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary, Sydney.
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1991, Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Berlin– New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764
View in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka A., 1999, Akty i gatunki mowy w różnych językach i kulturach, [w:] eadem, Język – umysł – kultura, Warszawa, s. 228–269.
View in Google Scholar
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2025 Celina Heliasz-Nowosielska
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
