https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 5, 2025
462
FACTORS SHAPING THE PRAGMATIC MEANING OF INTERROGATIVE
SENTENCES
K
holmatova Vazira Narzullayevna
Karshi State Technical University
Associate Professor of the Department of
"Foreign Languages," Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Philological Sciences
E-mail: vazira8707@gmail.com
Abstract:
In linguistics, there are numerous theoretical perspectives aimed at determining the
nature of the sentence phenomenon and its status within language and speech systems. Moreover,
the definitions given to the concept of "sentence" are innumerable. This is because each linguist
sets a specific task when selecting a sentence as an object of research or referring to this concept
in the analysis of other linguistic units. This, in turn, further attests to the fact that a sentence is a
multi-layered, multifaceted, and extremely complex linguistic object. Consequently, from the
multitude of existing definitions and descriptions, it becomes evident that a sentence, as a
linguistic unit, has a certain structure related to each of its individual characteristics. A sentence,
as an element of speech, possesses two high-level categories of abstraction: intention (speech
purpose) and predicativity.
Keywords:
Sentence, semantic-syntactic structures, speech structure, pragmatics, interrogative
sentences, presupposition.
The tradition of pragmatic study of linguistic units can actually be traced back to the idea of the
dialectical unity of language and speech phenomena, which has been dominant since the time of
Ferdinand de Saussure. In the field of linguistics during the last century, researchers primarily
focused on studying the phenomena of language systems and their systemic-structural
relationships. However, for the comprehensive development of theoretical linguistics, it is
essential to encompass speech activity as well. Indeed, it is through this activity that the
functions performed by language are fully manifested, and its nature and existence are fully
revealed in the speech process. Psycholinguists define speech activity as purposeful action
carried out using linguistic means (see: Pishalnikova 2017: 122-127). As is known, V. Humboldt,
one of the founders of theoretical linguistics, was among the first to introduce the concept of
"activity" into linguistics. Elaborating on the idea that "language is not a product of activity
(Ergon), but activity itself (Energia)," the German scholar wrote: "If we take this definition, it is
applicable to any speech activity, but strictly speaking, the totality of all speech acts constitutes
language" (Humboldt 1984: 70). Indeed, participants in communication perform various
purposeful actions during the process of speech activity. The speech act performed for a specific
purpose is based on the sentence, which is the main unit of the syntactic level, and through it, a
thought is formed, expressed, and communicated (Sayfullayeva et al. 2010: 313; Yusupov 2011:
213).
As mentioned above, the sentence as a communicative unit constitutes the object of research in
the pragmatic and communicative directions of linguistics. These areas characterize the intended
use and purpose of language units and grammatical forms, as well as their activation in specific
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 5, 2025
463
communicative situations, the structure of speech acts, and communicative intentions in
interconnected states.
Ch. Fillmore, who wrote about the importance of tasks related to determining sentence content
for the development of theoretical linguistics, notes that in any complete description of language,
it is necessary to refer to the facts of presupposition (Fillmore 1987).
Studying the content structure of a sentence based on its presuppositions goes beyond the scope
of linguistics to a certain extent, since presupposition is a supra-syntactic category. Moreover,
the nature of presupposition is understood differently. This, of course, leads to varying opinions
regarding the classification of presuppositions and their application. At the same time, it should
not be forgotten that the idea of presupposition theory aims at a deep understanding of sentence
content and explaining its manifestation in text. Therefore, special dictionaries note that
presupposition expresses the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic phenomena in the
structure of speech acts (Allort 2010; Crystal 2008; Safarov 2013).
In interpreting the structural-semantic features of a sentence, its paradigm is also taken into
account. O.E. Moskalskaya, in her well-known monograph "Problems of Systemic Description
of Syntax," notes that the sentence paradigm is based on three oppositions. These are: 1)
declarative: interrogative: imperative; 2) modality of reality: modality of unreality; 3) affirmation:
negation (Moskalskaya 1975).
As can be seen, the first two types of opposition differ somewhat from the third type. While the
declarative: interrogative: imperative opposition corresponds to the distribution of traditional
sentence communication types, the modality of unreality: modality of reality, as well as
oppositions in the form of affirmation: negation, are included in the category of predicativity (in
the broad sense of this term).
The meaning of predicativity, as a category belonging to the sentence level, is primarily
manifested through grammatical predicates. This leads to considering the predicate as the
structural-semantic center of the sentence. R. Sayfullayeva and her co-authors, interpreting the
category of predicate as a means of forming the "soul" and center of a sentence, emphasize that
"an important factor in conveying the essence of a sentence, that is, conveying a relatively
complete thought to others and ensuring their correct understanding, is the speech situation at the
stage of speech, while at the linguistic stage it is the category of predicate" (Sayfullayeva et al.,
2010: 329).
According to the English linguist J. Leech, the description of a sentence's semantic structure
should consist of an analysis of the predicate and its accompanying arguments. For example, the
scholar believes that the semantic structure of the sentence "The man was in front of the woman"
is formed by the semantic features of the predicate and arguments. In this case, the predicate
realizes its meaning through its relationship with the semes of the arguments and forms the
semantic foundation of the sentence (Leech 1991:97).
The aforementioned relationships are reflected in the following diagram:
Symbols
symbols
argument
argument
predicate
One of the shortcomings of the model proposed by J. Leach is the confusion of components at
different levels when determining the semantic composition of a particular group. It is known
that features such as definiteness, human, adult, and masculine on one hand, and plurality and
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 5, 2025
464
past tense on the other, belong to different levels of the language system. Furthermore, when
describing the content of a sentence, the meaning of its constituent elements is taken into account
rather than the meaning of the sentence structure itself.
The syntactic structure of a sentence has its own meaning, and it is impossible to disregard this
when determining the content of the sentence. Otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to
explain the semantic difference between structures such as "His statement is truly correct" and
"Is his opinion really correct?"
Thus, the study of the semantics of sentence-forming units and the features of the components of
the overall meaning continues. In carrying out this task, the issue of studying the pragmatic
content of the sentence holds a special place.
REFERENCES
1.1. Pishchalnikova V.A. Theory of psycholinguistics. - M.: FGBOU VO. MGLU, 2017. - 161 p.
2. Humboldt V. Von. Selected works on linguistics. - M.: Progress, 1984. - 397 p.
3. Saifullaeva R.R., Mengliev B.R., Bokieva G.Kh., Kurbonova M.M., Yunusova Z.Kh.,
Abuzalov M.Kh. Theory of linguistics. - T.: Fun and technology, 2010. - 404 p.
4. Yusupov O.K. The universal language of English. – T.: Akademnashr, 2011. – 376 p.
5.Fillmore Ch.J. Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description//Studies in linguistic
semantics. New York, 1987.
6.Allort N. Key terms in pragmatics. –N.Y.: Bloombery publishing, 2010.– 289 p.
7.Crystal D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. – L.: Blackwell publishing, 2008. – 529
p.
8.Safarov Sh. Tilshunoslik termlari lugati. – Tashkent:, 2013.
9.Moskal'skaya O.I. Problems of systemic description of syntax. – M.: Vysshaya shkola, 1975. –
156 p.
10. Leech G. Towards a Semantic Description of English. –London: Longman, 1991. –277 p.
