European International Journal of Philological Sciences
24
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
24-29
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
22 May 2025
ACCEPTED
20 June 2025
PUBLISHED
22 July 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 07 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Linguopragmatics In
Modern Linguistics:
Unpacking Implicature
And Context in
Communication
Dilrabo Nazirqulova Zafariddin qizi
Independent researcher in Uzbekistan, State world languages university,
Uzbekistan
Abduvahobova Mahina Ozodxonovna
PhD, docent Uzbekistan State world language university, English language
faculty 2, the head of the department, “Theoretical disciplines of English
language 2”
, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: The main purpose of this article is conveying
and giving valuable information about mostly
researched part, field of modern linguistics. It is obvious
that, contemporary researches done by various linguists
is mainly directed to reveal new perspectives, features
of pragmalinguistics. Numerous scientists did a lot of
researches in this field of linguistics, and their analyzing
methods, results can be used in our scientific works too.
In this article, looking through linguopragmatics in
Uzbek modern linguistics, opens new ways, new
opportunities to young scholars and encourage to
investigate new ideas, new approaches in this very field.
Keywords:
Linguistics, languages, English, Uzbek,
linguopragmatics,
linguistic
tools,
discourse,
implicature, text, context, maxims.
Introduction:
As the modern world around us is
developing and evolving very fast with its new
technologies, innovations and new investigations,
modern sciences are also coming into the scientific
scene. Linguopragmatics is the product of such new
researches, studies in the field of modern linguistics.
Linguopragmatics is the subfield of modern linguistics
that mainly deals with the language, its usage and
intentions in communication. In linguopragmatics, the
factor of human is forgrounded, as his/her intentions,
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
25
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
feelings, character, mood and the atmosphere around
them affects to the communication. Learning the
human, speech and other important factors during the
conversation gave priority to studying the field of
linguopragmatics.
Literature review
One of the early founders of pragmatics movement,
Charls Morris, first distinguished three distinct
branches of research, including the general form of the
science of signs or semiotics: syntactic(or syntax) or
that is, “the science of the formal relationship of signs
to each other”, semantics
-
“ the science of the
relationship of linguistic signs to the objects they are
used for, that is, to the objects they signify” (their
meanings), and pragmatics, that is, “the science of the
relationship of signs to the interpreter”[Levinson
2008:1]
Qinghuan Deng, a linguist form China wrote an article
devoted to b
ook review of Verschueren’sHandbook of
Pragmatics,and gave some analysis abot the origin, and
key notions of pragmatics.According to Verschuren
and Jan-Ola Ostman, who are the editors of The
handbook of Pragmatics, the discipline of pragmatics
originated from the unification of semiotics with
different
disciplines.Verschueren
argues,
that
pragmatics initially took as its subject, those topics
which could not be suitably explored with syntax,
semantics and after some times it interacted in various
ways with a number of disciplines.[Qinghuan
Deng:2011]
Qinghuan Deng assumes that, in accordance with the
above
given
historical
overviews
of
pragmatics,Verschueren proposes to pursue a
functional perspective on language-paying special
attention to language use.
That is, to make “making
choices” in communication as the core concept of
current work. According to him the interpretation of
“making choices” involves three hierarchically related
notions: variability, negotiability and adaptability,
which are considere
d to be “the interrelated
properties of the overall investigation for linguistic
pragmatics,
the
functionality
of
language”
[Verschueren2009:20, Q.Deng:2011]
George Yule, one of the prominent scientists in the
world of linguistics said that “Pragmatics is the study of
the relationships between linguistic forms and the
users of those forms. In the three-part distinction that
indicates to semantics, syntax and pragmatics, only
pragmatics allows humans into the analysis. The
advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that
one can talk people’s intended meanings, their
assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of
actions (for example, requests) that they are
performing when they speak”[Yule:1996:4,Ngô]
Nicholas Allott& Deirdre Wilson analyzed Chomsky’s
works and his influence to pragmatics, and pointed out
that, according to Chomsky, “If intuition is any guide,
there seems to be a considerable gap between the
semantic resources of language literally interpreted and
thoughts expressed using them”. They emphasized that
pragmatic processes crucially rely on background or
contextual information supplied by the hearer, which
may significantly affect the outcome of the
comprehension process. [Allott& Wilson:2021]
Uzbek scientist M.Khakimov in his monograph “The
fundamentals of Pragmalinguistics” assumes that, “a
number of additional meanings understood from
specific sentences, are inextricably linked to the speech
situation and context. Such meanings which are
inextricably linked to the speech situation and context,
and the means of expressing them are the object of
study of linguistics pragmatics”
[Khakimov:2013]
Another uzbek scientist, who did research in the field
of linguopragmatics, Sh. Safarov, focuses on
communicative strategies and their implications for
pragmatics in language use. His research provides
frameworks for analyzing how speakers employ various
strategies
to
achieve
specific
conversational
goals.Safarov’s insights align closely with the principles
of linguopragmatics by illustrating how contextual
factors influence strategic choices in communication.
His analyses contribute to understanding the dynamics
of language interaction and how pragmatics can inform
practical applications in real-world communicative
exchanges. [Safarov:2015]
SayyoraAzimovaXusanboyevna devoted one of her
articles to the topic of “Linguopragmatic properties of
language” and highlighted some statements, opinio
ns of
different scholars who have done researches on this
topic. She concludes her review on the topic with such
words that were cited from Aznaurova’s work:
No matter how diverse the definition of
pragmalinguistics may be, researchers agree on the
following basic ideas:
-The basic point of the description of communicative
activity is the concept of activity;
-Language is a means of activating the interaction of the
participants of communication;
-The occurance of linguistic activity is a phenomenon
directly related to the communication environment.
[Aznaurova:1988]
METHODOLOGY
Analyzing and finding some valuable information about
the emergence and theoretical background of
linguopragmatics, required looking through the works
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
26
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
of European and Uzbek prominent linguists, such as
A.S.Levinson, S.J.Austin, Searle, Verschueren, G.Yule,
Qinghuan Deng, M.Khakimov, Sh.Safarov and etc. As
for the methods, discourse analysis, descriptive
methods were used in this research.
RESULTS
The works that have been studied and researched
during our research, gave some conclusions that the
core principles of this field in contemporary linguistic
studies include speech act theory by J.Austin and
Searle, P.Grice’scooperative principle, discource,
deixis, implicature, presupposition and pragmatic
competence. The theoretical framework encompasses
various aspects of language use, such as how language
is used to perform actions, convey meaning and create
coherence in communication. The first component of
linguopragmatics speech act was firstly introduced by
J.Austin in his work “How to do things with Words”
published in 1962.
S.Azimova indicates that, “Speech acts are the essence
of pragmatism. The emergence of the concepts of
speech act is the theoretical basis for linguistic
pragmatics.The speech act is made up of certain
subgroups in terms of semiological speech, which
again form an internal microsystem and reunited into
a larger system based on certain principles of speech
act.” [Azimova:2021]
According to Richard Nordquist, speech act theory is
the branch of linguopragmatics, that studies how
words are utilized not only to present information, but
also to carry out actions. [Nordquist:2024]. He assumes
that, Speech act theory was firstly introduced by
Oxford philosop
her J.L.Austin in “How To Do Things
With Words” and further developed by American
philosopher John Searle. The theory considers the
degree to which utterances are said to perform
locutionary, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary act.
[Nordquist:2024]
Nader Hanna and Deborah Richards in their article
named “Speech act theory as an or human
-agent
communication” implied that, the main idea of Speech
Act theory is that, during communication people do
not just utter propositions to be answered with
acceptance or rejection. Instead, every exchanged
sentence, in a communication situation includes the
intention of the speaker to accomplish something,
such as requesting, advising and so on. [Hanna,
Richards:2019]
Austin delineated three attributes of utterances that
commence with linguistic elements and culminate in
their impact on a recipient.These characteristics
encompass the initial formation of statements using
words and the subsequent influence they exert on the
audience. Austin emphasized the importance of
understanding the process by which words are used to
create meaningful communication. By examining the
relationship between words and their effect on the
listener, one can gain insight into the dynamics of
effective communication. [Hanna,Richards:2019]
1.Locutionary acts refer to the physical act of producing
a sentence. this encompasses the articulation of words
and sounds that form a coherent linguistic
expression.These
acts
are
fundamental
in
communication as they represent the basic building
blocks of language use. They involve the physical
manifestation of language through speech or writing.
2.Illocutionary acts refer to the communication of the
speaker’s intended meaning, including informing,
ordering, warning and undertaking. These acts are a way
for speakers to convey their intentions through speech.
3. The perlocutionary effect encompasses various
outcomes such as providing information on a potential
action, reporting the completion of a task, or influencing
someone’s perspective.
Theperlocutionary effect can
involve informing about a future course of action,
reporting task completion or persuading others to adopt
a particular viewpoint.
Another contributor of speech act theory, John
Searle,established a classification of illocutionary
speech acts that covers wider variety of intentions of
utterances. Let’s consider the Searle’s classification of
illocutionary speech acts [Searle:1969]:
-Comissives-speech acts that commit a speaker to
performing an action. E.g: promises
-Declarations-speech acts that bring something about in
the world, e.g.pronouncing something
-Directives-speech acts that influence the listener to
take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands and
advice.
-Expressives-
speech acts that represent the speaker’s
psychological state or attitudes towards a proposition,
and which have an impact on the listener, e.g.
congratulations, excuses and thanking
-Representatives-speech acts that express the state of
the speaker. [Hannah &Richards:2019]
Knowing and using these types of illocutionary speech
acts provides interlocutors with accurate, concise and
fruitful conversation.
Another key component of linguopragmatics is context
and communicative situation. Understanding and
analyzing the setting and circumstances in which
communication occurs is crucial for interpretating
meaning. What the speaker wants to convey in the
situation and what actually means the context, and
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
27
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
what factors can influence on the communicative
situation and knowing these features give the chance
of easily getting the situational conversation and its
meaning.
Intention and communicative purpose are also form
the key components of linguopragmatics. Before
beginning
the
communication,
interlocutors
determine their intentions and communicative
purpose that was intended from the conversation.
One of the essential notions oflinguopragmatics that is
researched and studied by linguists, is the study of
communication postulates,that is the principles or
rules of normal human communication. The notion
“communication postulates” was introduc
ed by
H.P.Grice. Such communicative postulates or more
common version of it “maxims” indicate behavioral
rules, etiquette, manner of the people in the process
of communication. Such maxims, behavioral rules are
based on the principle of cooperation, correlation,
collaboration and specificregulations.[Alihasanova,
2025]
Another crucial aspect of linguopragmatics is the
notion ofimplicature.Implicatureshave a great role in
enhancing communication efficiency by conveying
meaning beyond literal expressions. Implicatures can
be classified into two main types: conversational and
conventional. Conversational implicatures are mainly
based on the cooperative principle and maxims of
cooperation proposed by Grice which were highlighted
above. Christopher Potts in his
book “Conventional
implicatures, a distinguished class of meanings” takes
a fresh look into the old description o the term and
suggests that, “The pragmatic theory of Grice 1975
takes the form of an overarching cooperative principle
and a set of maxims. Together these help to shape both
linguistic and non-linguistic social interactions. The
theory is thus tailored to describing conversational
implicatures, a class of non-lexical meanings whose
presence and nature are contextually determined and
negotiable. In contrast, Conventional implicatures
trace back to individual lexical items and have the force
of entailments.”
[Potts,2005]
AntoneDecressac in his article devoted to identify the
difference between conventional and conversational
implicatures, indicates that Grice’s definition of
implicature as a way of suggesting or implying
something in conversation without outright stating it
and adds that it is the unspoken part of communication
that mainly relies on shared knowledge, context and
social norms. [Decressac,2024]
Here, giving the definition of implicature, he comes up
with the example of implicature:
A.
“Did you finish the report?”
B.
“I managed to organize my desk” [Decressac,
2024]
Analyzing the example more concisely and deeply, we
can state that, the speaker is speakingabout his/her
unfinished task with implied way. That’s, it’s obvious
from the dialogue that the partner of
the speaker hasn’t
finished the work yet, even if, he/she didn’t speak about
it directly. The above given dialogue is a good example
of conversational implicature. In order to understand
the distinction between conversational implicature and
conventional one, one more example of implicature
should be examined.
According to Decressac, the conventional implicature is
linked with specific words or phrases used in a sentence.
He points out that, this type of implicature is
conventionally associated with the meaning of certain
expressions. It can be understood that, this implicature
is the part of the conventional meaning of the words
themselves, rather than being extracted from the
context or the speaker’s intentions.
[Decressac,2024]
Let's consider some examples in order to understand
the
distinction
between
conventional
and
conversational implicature:
A.
“Did you finish the report?”
B.
“I
managed
to
organize
my
desk”
[Decressac,2024]
Another example taken from the article of Davis Wayne,
“Implicature”, we can co
mprehend the total expression
of conversational type of implicature:
Alan: “Are you going to Paul’s party?”
Barb: “I have to work.”
This example shows that, Barb is not going to Paul’s
party and she is not intending to go there absolutely, by
saying that she has to work. Answering the question
with her necessity to work is reflected with the help of
implicature. Here Wayne
includes the Grice’s
introduction the terms implicate and implicaturefor the
case in which what the speaker said is distinct from what
the speaker thereby meant or implied. [Abbot, 2006]
Thus, Barb is conveying her not going to the party
through her utterance and that, she is not going was
implicature.In this example, we can see a very good
pattern of conversational implicature. Here, the
interlocutor of the speaker is not answering to the
question directly. He is speaking about his lack of time
to do his report with the help of implicature. It can be
comprehended from the answer that he hasn’t finished
the work yet.
As for the type of conventional implicatures, it is
suggested that, conventional implicatures unlike the
conversational ones, linked to specific words and
phrases used in a sentence. According to Moeschler’s
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
28
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
indication,
conventional
implicatures
can
be
represented with different ways. He in the article of
“Conventional and conversational implicatures”
analyzed the definitions of the main aspects of
linguopragmatics and present some excerpts from
Grice’s definitions. “in some cases
the conventional
meaning of the words used will determine what is
implicated, besides helping to determine what is said.
If I say (smugly), He is an Englishman;he is, therefore,
brave. I have certainly committed myself, by virtue of
the meaning of my words to its being the case that his
being brave is a consequence of (follows from) his
being an Englishman”
[Grice1975:44]
Several linguistic tools can be used in the sentence in
order to express conventional implicature. Looking
more concisely, and concluding from the above given
statements of linguopragmatic scholars, to the
description of conventional implicature, we can
suggest that, this type of implicature can be considered
as a linguistic concept that refers to meaning that is not
directly stated in a sentence, but is implied based on
conventional rules or norms of language use. The
expression of conventional implicature relies on
specific
linguistic
tools
that
are
used
by
interlocutors.Such linguistic tools, phrases help convey
additional meaning beyond the literal interpretation of
the words used.
The following part of the research is covered with
some linguistic and grammatical tools that express
conventional implicature, and in order to illustrate our
statements we have come up with precise samples.
Oneof the common grammatical tools in conveying
conventional implicatures is the usage of adverbs and
adverbial phrases in the utterance. For instance, the
use of the adverb “surprisingly”in the sentence gives
totally implicature to the meaning.
Example: Surprisingly,Ann has finished the task on
time.
Entailment:Ann has finished the work
Conventional implicature: It is least likely that Ann
finishes the task on time, as she often puts off doing
her tasks.
Another linguistic tools that can be considered as the
tools of expressing conventional implicature, are the
words “therefore”, “but”, and “even”, “however”
which give additional information that serves to enrish
the meaning of the utterance.
For ex: Even John knows the answer. In this example it
is understood, that, John’s knowing the answe
r is
totally
unpredictable
and
unexpected.
And
conventional implicature here is John is the least likely
person to know the answer.
This was a hard thing to bear, but this was nothing.
(Dickens, Great expectations)
Here the usage of the conjunction “but” i
s giving the
meaning of contrast to the utterance.
The study of conventional and conversational
implicatures gave the comprehension about the
importance of them in speech communication, and
created a more concise distinction in our scientific
knowledge. Briefly, we can sum up that, conversational
implicatures are totally context-centered, that they
can’t be easily canceled as they are connected with
contextual
inference,
whereas,
conventional
implicaturesare context-independent, as they maintain
consistency across different conversational contexts
due to their inherent encoding in thelanguage. This
encoding insures that the implicatures are conveyed
consistently regardless of the specific context of the
conversation.
Implicatures are mainly used in order to create fruitful
conversation among people and it can be considered as
the best way of conveying nuanced meanings and
avoiding direct confrontation.
CONCLUSION
Taking
all
the
things
into
consideration,Linguopragmatics as an interdisciplinary
domain at the intersection of linguistics and pragmatics,
plays a crucial role in understanding the complexities of
language use in social contexts.The significance of this
field of study lies mainly in the interpretation of
meaning that is constructed not only by linguistic
structures, bu also through the interplay of context,
speaker intentions, and social norms.
REFERENCES
Levinson S.C. Pragmatics-Cambridge: Cambridge
University press,2008
Qinghuan Deng. Key notions for Pragmatics:
–
2476,2011
Verschueren J, Ostman Jan-Ola, Handbook of
Pragmatics, 21
st
annual installment: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2001
Verschueren
J.
Understanding
Pragmatics.
(Understanding
language
series.)
London:Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press/
Yule
G.
Pragmatics.
Oxford-Oxford
University
Press,1996
Yule
G.Pragmatics,
https://www.academia.edu/60254109/Yule_George_P
ragmatics
Allott, Nicholas & Wilson, Deirdre.Chomsky and
Pragmatics. In Nicholas Allott, TerjeLohndal& Georges
Rey, A Companion to Chomsky. Wiley. 2021,pp. 433
–
447.
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
29
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
Khakimov M. Fundamentals of pragmalinguistics
–
Toshkent. Akademnashr 2013-176b
Safarov.Sh, Pragmalingvistika-Toshkent.2015
Xusanboevna, S. A. Linguopragmatic Properties of
Language. International Journal of Discoveries and
Innovations in Applied Sciences, 1(4), 10-12. 2021
AznaurovaE.S.The pragmatics of the artistic word.-
Tashkent:Subject,1988.-p28
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon
Press. 1962
Nordquist, Richard. (2024, June 7). What Is The Speech
Act
Theory:
Definition
and
Examples.Retrievedfrom
Hanna, N., & Richards, D. (2019). Speech Act Theory as
an
evaluation
tool
for
human
–
agent
communication.
Algorithms
,
12
(4),
1-17.
Article
https://doi.org/10.3390/a12040079
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the
philosophy
of
language.
Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Alikhasanova Z.F. Linguopragmatics in the system of
linguistic sciences,2025
Potts Ch. Conventional implicatures, a distinguished
meaning, Oxford university press, 2005
Decressac
A.
Conventional
vs
Conversational
Implicature:
What’s
the
Difference?
2024
, 23.03.2025
Davis,
Wayne,
"Implicature",
The
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2024 Edition),
Edward
N.
Zalta&
Uri
Nodelman (eds.),
URL<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/ent
ries/implicature/>.
Abbott, Barbara, 2006, “Where Have Some of the
Presuppositions Gone?”, in Birner& Ward 2006: 1–
20.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole,
& J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58).
NewYork: AcademicPress.
