This article examines the communicative-intentional nature of substandard verbs and verb-like expressions denoting mental activity from the perspective of speech act theory. Mental-activity verbs express cognitive processes such as thinking, understanding, guessing, remembering, doubting, realizing, evaluating, and failing to understand. However, in real communication these meanings are not expressed only through neutral literary verbs such as think, know, understand, remember or Uzbek o‘ylamoq, bilmoq, tushunmoq, eslamoq. Speakers often use colloquial, slang-like, idiomatic, metaphorical, and socially marked expressions such as get it, figure out, reckon, suss out, wrap one’s head around and Uzbek kallasi yetmoq, miyasiga kirmoq, bosh qotirmoq, fahmi yetmoq. The article argues that such forms are communicatively powerful because they express not only mental states but also speaker intention, interpersonal positioning, epistemic stance, politeness, irony, solidarity, criticism, and emotional evaluation. Drawing on speech act theory, the study models these verbs according to their locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary functions. The findings demonstrate that substandard mental-activity verbs function as pragmatic tools for managing knowledge, softening assertions, requesting clarification, expressing disagreement, constructing informal discourse, and influencing the listener’s interpretation.
The Communicative-Intentional Nature of Substandard Verbs Denoting Mental Activity: Linguopragmatic Modelling Based on Speech Act Theory
DOI:
Keywords:
Abstract
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Holmes, J. (2013).n skills, and intercultural awareness. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O‘zbek tilining izohli lug‘ati. (2006–2008). 5 jildlik. Toshkent: O‘zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi Davlat ilmiy nashriyoti.