2025 Vol. 16 №2

The ‘pragmatics of language’ is a set of pragmatic means of a particular language, the meanings of which not only change the world, but also themselves change in the framework of discourse. At the same time, ‘linguistic pragmatics’ is a branch of linguistics that examines linguistic units from the point of view of their use. The ‘pragmatic turn’ of the 1970s in lin­guistics meant an interest in using language as an action in which words acquire their ac­tual mea­nings, sometimes radically different from their non — contextual dictionary mea­nings. The study of the contribution that linguistic means of epistemic modality make to the mea­ning of discourse is a subject of epistemic pragmatics and has great applied potential. The article examines the lines of demarcation between linguistic semantics and pragmatics, as well as research directions in the field of epistemic pragmatics, including the use of epistemic modalities in the text. Strategies and tactics of manipulative influence on the audience play a crucial role in the presentation of epistemic warrants — guarantees that shape the epistemic credit history of communicants and may sometimes result in epistemic default. Some communicative techniques used in this process are analyzed: appeal to the guarantor of truth and reliability (authority), cognitive and communicative maneuvering, toggle words in media texts, etc.

This study focuses on the Routinicon database as a digital tool for describing routines — a distinct class of formulaic phraseological units that represent reactions to or comments on standard extralinguistic situations. For instance, the formula Kogo ya vizhu! (Whom do I see!) serves as a reaction to an unexpected meeting, while Kto tam? (Who’s there?) is a standard formulaic reaction to a knock at the door. The collection, classification and study of units of this kind is of undoubted interest both from the point of view of discourse theory and pragmatics, and from the point of view of the practice of mastering live spoken Russian by foreign speakers. Routinicon is a natural extension of the projects Russian Constructicon and Pragmaticon and borrows principles of data collection and data processing from the predecessor projects. At the same time, Routinicon collects phraseological units of a different type than these databases, and their description requires a fundamentally different annotation structure. The article discusses the principles and features of this annotation, as well as its potential for the intralingual classification of Russian language routines and its applicability to the corresponding material of other languages — laying the groundwork for future typological studies. Italian language examples collected by the authors are used for illustrations.

The article examines the concept of the rhetorical question, which — quite surprisingly — is still not part of the standard and widely recognized inventory of linguistic categories, and the term ‘rhetorical question’ is rarely used in linguistic studies. At the same time, the ex­pres­sion ‘rhetorical question’ is actively employed in discourse, and, at first glance, seems to be used in a rather broad and undefined sense. The goal of this article is to distinguish between the­se two fields: linguistics and everyday speech. On the one hand, the concept of a rhetorical question is given a clear definition, allowing the term to be introduced into the linguistic framework, and on the other hand, the actual usage of this expression in discourse is desc­ribed. It is shown that the general principle of using the word ‘rhetorical’ in discourse in relation to a question is that this question is ‘not genuine’ in some way, i. e. it is a question that is not being asked in order to get the answer. To characterize a question as rhetorical, two parameters are significant: “Why does this question not require an answer?” and “For what purpose is this statement being made, if not to get an answer?” By calling (his own or so­meo­ne else's) question ‘rhetorical’, the speaker indicates the implementation of one of the values of these parameters.

The paper views pragmatic meanings that have regular expression in language. Such meanings are 1) the illocutionary goal (illocutionary force) of an utterance, 2) the illocu­tio­nary function of a component of an utterance (theme and rheme of a statement, the known and the unknown of a question), 3) contrast and emphasis, and 4) the meaning of complete­ness/incompleteness of a speech act as a component of coherent discourse. It is shown that prosody is the main means of expressing pragmatic meanings in the languages of the world, and the expressed meanings are organized into a system that corresponds to the system of the prosodic means used. The study uses corpus and instrumental methods of analysis. The main material for analysis is the Russian language. The multimodal subcorpus of the National Corpus of the Russian Language was used as a corpus for the study. The primacy of prosody over segmental means of expressing the most important pragmatic meanings is demonstrated, in particular, using the material of the previously insufficiently studied speech act of an echo-question. An echo-question is statistically often a short speech act with minimal segmental material (“What?” “Eh?”). Consequently, the completeness and accuracy of the analysis for various types of echo-questions can only be achieved through the use of the corpus method, which allows obtaining a sufficient amount of data and representative material for analysis.

This study explores the organization of multimodal systems, mediated by two types of hierarchical regulations: systemic regulations governing each mode (speech and gesture) and multimodal regulations operationalizing mode alignment. To identify these regulations, we examine the variability of the multimodal speech-gesture system, modulated by the cognitive factor of vague reference in expository dialogue. The data were collected in an experiment involving native Russian speakers explaining the differences between close synonyms. The paper contrasts the distribution of vague reference speech cues used to shape referents in names (placeholders) and point the way to the referent in predications (approximators), both aligned with functional gestures (deictic, representational, and pragmatic).

The findings reveal several regulations that constrain the distribution and alignment of speech cues and gestures. First, the prevalence of approximators is observed, indicating that a higher input of predication expresses vague reference. Second, the prevalence of placeholders in the Request communicative move was found, accounting for the Request’s role in both initiating a new act and completing the previous one by renaming the vague referent. Third, a more frequent use of pragmatic gestures with approximators was identified, suggesting that while nominations primarily evoke iconic and indexical representations in gestures, predications are strongly linked with pragmatic manifestations. Finally, the study reveals that vague reference serves as a cognitive principle regulating the speech and gesture system in interactional discourse.