Current issue

Due to technical reasons, several articles originally intended for the thematic issue “Pragmalinguistics: In Search of Synthesis” (Slovo.ru: Baltic Accent, 2025, No. 2), prepared by the editorial team in collaboration with guest co-editors V. V. Feshchenko, I. V. Zykova, and O. V. Sokolova, have been carried over into the present issue. With this release, we conclude the publication of the thematic cluster. At the same time, we plan to return to this line of research in the coming year and encourage further discussion of the proposed concepts and methodological approaches, especially given the inherently debatable nature of many contributions published over the course
of the year. The second section of this issue is devoted to a theme both central and longstanding for the journal: the reflection of cultural and historical epochs in the word, as well as the word’s active role in shaping them. This juxtaposition has unexpectedly revealed a deeper connection between the two thematic sections — the structuring of pragmatics within semantic systems and the realization of semantics within pragmatic models.

A hermeneutical interpretation of Goethe’s Faust’s attempt to interpret the meaning of the Gospel word λόγος, the first three verses of the Gospel of John, and the first three verses of the book of Genesis is proposed. The analysis of these hermeneutical constructions makes it possible to relate them—as well as the phenomenon of genesis itself—to the author’s model of recursion with inversive switching. The next step is to use this model to interpret and understand the pragmatic moment as the active beginning of meaning-making and communication. The radical expansion of pragmatics extends it beyond the bounds of semiotics proper, enabling it to be conceived as a virtually boundless sphere of human action—or more broadly, of universal agency. In this capacity, the expanding sphere of effective meaning-making is no longer reducible to practices and analytical rules of working with discrete signs. This requires their methodological and terminological distinction. Accordingly, the study of extended semiosis becomes a matter of emerging semiosics, and the principles and rules of combining discrete signs into complete statements become familiar semiotics. A similar need has emerged in contemporary linguistics: the need to distinguish between the expanded use of linguistic capacities for pragmatically motivated communication—or languaging—and the more narrowly defined traditional models of text and utterance construction based on normative lexicons and formal grammars. The article contains a sketch of the main approaches to the study of verbalisation and the formation of the corresponding scientific traditions.

This article examines the phenomenon of pragmatic obligatoriness. For illustrative purposes, it discusses Russian discourse markers—particularly the particles ‘vdrug’ and ‘razve’. An expression is considered pragmatically obligatory in a given communicative
situation if its absence, where the situation calls for it, may lead to unintended implicatures. Pragmatically obligatory discourse markers may occasionally appear in translation even when no direct stimulus is present in the source text. Special attention is given to the use of proper names and the act of telling jokes. The article explores the pragmatic principle governingproper names through the concept of the mental dossier, arguing that the introduction of a name should be accompanied by a description of its referent. In fictional texts, violation of this principle may produce specific artistic effects. The article also differentiates between the telling of jokes and related speech genres. It argues that the introduction of a forthcoming canned joke into discourse is necessary, and it examines certain clichés commonly used to preface such jokes—clichés that are never employed to introduce spontaneous jokes.

The article is devoted to connectives, i. e., functional words and constructions whose primary function is to express semantic relations between units of discourse. It aims to explore the pragmatic dimension of connectives, which remains largely underappreciated in linguistic pragmatics to date. Given that the concept of pragmatics has at least two distinct interpretations in linguistic research—here termed the epistemological (pragmatics as shared knowledge activated in discourse production and comprehension) and the semiotic (pragmatics as information about the speaker’s attitude toward the utterance, conveyed through linguistic means)—both perspectives are addressed. The introductory section justifies the use of the term konnektor (the Russian equivalent of connective), a relatively recent addition to Russian linguistic terminology, arguing for its advantages over closely related terms. This section also demonstrates the formal diversity of connectives. Section 2, the main body of the article, consists of two parts. In the first (2.1), it is argued that pragmatics, in its epistemological interpretation, functions as a factor that specifies or refines the general semantic relation expressed by the connective. In the second part (2.2), the focus shifts to the semiotic interpretation, where we identify pragmatic components within the linguistic meaning of connectives. Based on the analysis of several representative cases, the article concludes that,
in addition to their primary function of marking semantic relations within discourse, some connectives also perform a secondary function: conveying pragmatic information about the speaker’s attitude toward the propositional content of the connected units.

The study follows the tenets of cognitive multimodal pragmatics, focusing on some specific features of intersubjective positioning with gestures in Russian dialogic speech. It is hypothesized that gestures with recurring formal features (type and direction of movement, palm configuration, etc.) exhibit certain regularities when used with pragmatic markers of intersubjective positioning, such as agreement and disagreement, viewpoint blending, reference to the subject of positioning, opposition of viewpoints, and direct or indirect evidentiality. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of video recordings annotated with the help of ELAN software have revealed that offering gestures (open-palm, directed towards the interlocutor) are the most frequently used with all markers of intersubjectivity. However, statistically significant correlations between the gesture types and the (sub)types of intersubjectivity were found only for pointing gestures for agreement vs. disagreement, and for binary mirror gestures for merging viewpoints vs. opposing viewpoints. Namely, pointing gestures are significantly more often associated with agreement, while binary gestures are more commonly linked to the opposition of viewpoints. The approach enables the identification of gestures with regular positioning functions in dialogue (i. e., recurrent gestures). From a cognitive perspective, certain features of embodied cognition in dialogic communication have been identified. The findings confirm the significance of the bodily orientation of the speakersas related to the viewpoints they express. This is achieved through several mimetic schemas the gestures are based upon: demonstration of an object, establishing physical contact with the interlocutor, and localization or placement of objects in space.