The aim of this paper is to present, after a short introduction to what pragmateme, or pragmatic phraseologism, is and how we understand it as a fixed expressive phrase with affective and emotive load, the results of the Polonium project entitled “Pragmatemes in contrast: from linguistic modeling to lexicographic coding”. In particular, we want to divulgate information concerning analysis of the French pragmateme Ça roule ! and its Italian corresponding phrase A posto!. Furthermore, equivalents of both pragmatemes are also investigated. However, as we consider cognitive linguistics tools as those which may give greater response to what the meaning of pragmatemes is, we broaden the project results with analysis of the trajector-landmark relation and of conceptual metaphors, that are the basis of the imagery for the aforementioned linguistic elements. In this way, we may also try to discern similarities and discrepancies in how close but still different cultures depict the same scene in similar speech events.
The starting point of this project is the fact that we are constantly “under the influence of someone else”. From an early age, our perception of reality is shaped by the environment (community) in which we live, i.e. by our parents, friends, teachers, but also by the so-called mass media. Opinion-forming is undoubtedly deliberately instrumentalised through the implementation of a strategy aimed at obtaining the approval of its receiver. The objective of this study is to discuss different types of linguistic manipulation. We will also propose an analysis of different types oflinguistic manipulation, in particular syntactic.
The presented text will touch on the issue too often neglected in studies of pragmatemes, namely the role of prosody in determining what is a pragmateme and what is not. First, the analyses of prosody and of its role in the determination and functioning of various linguistic phenomena (informational structure of the sentence, presupposition, relative propositions) are reviewed, then the definitions of pragmatems by I. Mel’čuk and X. Blanco with S. Mejri are presented, to move on, at the end, to analyse the role of prosody in the determination of the pragmatematical or non-pragmatematical status of constructions through analyses of cases of pragmatemes that should not be qualified in this way without precise indications on prosody. The point is that even if mistakes are made in the spelling or transcription, the actual pronunciation of the constructions in a concrete enunciation situation must be suitable for the construction in question to function as a pragmateme. It is a suitable intonation which, with the appropriate context, makes construction a pragmateme - the intonation is thus truly (co-)generating the meaning of the construction - otherwise the construction would have its literal meaning. This finding also invites us to make a detailed study, from this point of view, of as many of the expressions qualified as pragmatems as possible, and to include the decisive prosodic information in dictionary entries of this type of expression.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.