


Uuc 88:.o8,.(,
Radka Vlahova (Sofia)
Conversation – Strategies of Understanding
and Pseudo-Understanding

Кључне речи:
speachact, verbal strategy,
interactiv speech, kognitive
speech, verbal cooperation.
У раду се разматраjу различити типови
диjалога у светлу филозофских идеjа
о говорним чиновима и интерактивном
говору. На основу примера из светске
књижевности на словенским jезицима
могу се издвоjити три модела. Они
представљаjу различите типове вербалне
комуникациjе и jезичка средства за њихову
реализациjу.
T
he lheme I have chosen foi lhis papei
aiose fiom an incieasingly lopical piob-
lem – lhe pioblem of (disiupled) commu-
nicalion.
As a philologisl I will dwell upon one
aspecl which is connecled wilh my piofes-
sional inleiesls – lhe undeislanding of lexls
and undeislanding by way of lexls.
I will slail wilh lhe gieal Bulgaiian
poel A. Dalchev's definilion of lianslalion:
“Tianslalion is like a window in which lhe
iefleclions of lhe slieel blend wilh lhe ieflec-
lions of lhe ioom.” If I may make a fiee
inleipielalion – lianslalion is also conveisa-
lion – conveisalion belween aulhoi and
lianslaloi and belween lianslaled lexl and
ils addiessee. Te success of lhis conveisa-
lion is coded in lhe condilions foi undei-
slanding. Undeislanding may be achieved
if one pailicipanl gives suffi cienlly cleai
insliuclions, which can be adequalely deci-
pheied by lhe olhei pailicipanl who lhus
can ieacl in a ielevanl way. I inlenlionally
menlion lhe woid insliuclions. Heie I am
nol going lo undeilake any long excuisions
inlo lhe field of speech. I will nol elabo-
iale on lhe well-known foimulalions fiom
lhe ieseaich on miciodialogues, queslion–
answei unils and lhe chaiacleiislics of poly-
logue. Howevei, il is an indispulable facl
lhal if lhe slimulus is nol decipheied as a
stimulus, i.e. also as an insliuclion, lheie
will be no response and lhus lheie will be
no conveisalion.
We have lo admil lhal lhe ieseaich on
conveisalion (and in pail on dialogue)
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 165

RADKA VLAHOVA

accenluales lwo fealuies: lo whal degiee
lhe pioposilional conlenl of lhe slalemenl
coiiesponds lo lhe aims of communicalion
and can lead lo adequale communicalive
value foi lhe addiessee, and of lhe success of
some communicalive slialegy. Heie il is as
if one has ignoied lhe facl lhal communica-
lion is a bipailile piocess and emphasizes
lhe speakei, wheieas lhe heaiei becomes lhe
objecl of allenlion mainly when so called
“flouling” occuis. Even H. P. Giice’s “con-
veisalional maxims” which iesull fiom his
geneial piinciple of co-opeialion belween
lhe pailicipanls in lhe conveisalion, aie
mainly insliuclions lo lhe speakei. Tey
aie lhe following: Te maxim of quanlily
– Make your contribution as informative as
required for the purposes of the conversa-
tion! One should say neither too little nor
too much!
Te maxim of qualily – Your contribu-
tion should be true!
Te maxim of ielevance – Your contribu-
tion should clearly relate to the purpose of
the exchange!
Te maxim of mannei – Your contribu-
tion should be perspicuous!
Tis is a geneial maxim which is subslan-
lialed lhiough lhe maxims: Avoid obscurity
of the statement! Avoid ambiguity! Be brief!
Be organized!
Apail fiom lhese maxims lheie aie olhei
of secondaiy impoilance (wilh eslhelic,
social oi moial chaiaclei) foi example – Be
polite!
In conneclion wilh Giice’s maxims,
Kempson (Kempson :,,,) has launched
lhe concepl of the pragmatic world of dis-
course (speech) on lhe basis of lhe exam-
ined by Slioson “presumption of knowledge”
and “presumption of ignorance” – lhe speak-
ei's piesumplions conceining lhe heaiei's
knowledge aboul lhe lopic of conveisalion.
In conveisalion, lhe speakei musl have
simullaneously lhe piesumplion lhal lhe
heaiei is nol alieady infoimed aboul whal
is said, as well as lhe piesumplion lhal lhe
heaiei knows some facls ielevanl lo lhe
slalemenl. Even lhis maximally geneial-
ized piesenlalion cleaily displays lhal il is
piimaiily lhe cognilive language use (lhe
leim is fiom J. Habeimas) lhal is meanl.
In cognilive language use lhe conlenl is
lopicalized. Il peimils only speech acls in
which lhe pioposilional conlenls may lake
on an explicil foim of lhe pioposilional
slalemenl. Such constative speech acls aie
used when we claim lhal lhe validily of lhe
pioposilion is appioved. Lel me iemind
you whal Auslin had in mind wilh lhe con-
liasling of conslalive and non-conslalive
speech acls: “In a conslalive slalemenl we
absliacl ouiselves fiom lhe illoculionaiy…
aspecl of lhe speech acl and concenliale
on lhe loculionaiy. When doing lhis we use
a quile indiiecl nolion of lhe coiiespond-
ence of facls... Tis is lhe ideal behavioi in
any ciicumslance, foi any goals and befoie
any audience elc… In a peifoimalive slale-
menl we concenliale on lhe illoculionaiy
foice of lhe conliibulion and absliacl oui-
selves fiom lhe coiiespondence of facls.”
(Auslin :,,,: :(–:,) In What is Universal
Pragmatics J. Habeimas (Habeimas :,8()
discusses lhe oveicoming of conliadiclion
belween lhe conslalive chaiaclei of an
ulleiance and lhe peiloculionaiy effecl lhal
il may have (as a peifoimalive slalemenl),
by diffeienlialing inleiaclive and cognilive
language use. Accoiding lo him, language
communicalion may only lake place if lhe
pailicipanls aie localed simullaneously in
lwo planes: lhe plane of inleisubjeclivily
in which lhey have peisonal inleiielalions,
and lhe plane of expeiience and lhe slale
of lhings. Inleiaclive language use empha-
sizes lhe ielalions lhe speakei and heaiei
eslablish and lhe pioposilional conlenl of
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 166
CONVERSATI ON  STRATEGI ES OF UNDERSTANDI NG AND PS EUDO UNDERSTANDI NG


lhe slalemenl is haidly menlioned. In lhis
sense we may say lhal lhe slimulus, iegaid-
less of which lype of speech acl il belongs
lo as an independenl ulleiance, and as pail
of a dialogue, also conlains a diieclive com-
ponenl lhal is asciibed by lhe silualion
ilself. Tis diieclive componenl iepiesenls
lhe insliuclion: “Respond!”, i.e. “Conlinue
lhe conveisalion!”.
An exlieme example of lhis lype of
behavioui is demonslialed in lhe conveisa-
lion belween Hadji Smion and his neigh-
boui Nencho Oieshkov – “Tschichovlsi”
by Ivan Vazov (Vazov :,,6). Tis convei-
salion also displays lhe slialegy of lolal
undeislanding, i.e. agieemenl al any cosl,
which could be called “Te Hadji Smion
Slialegy”. Il was foimulaled by Vazov in lhe
following way: “…he avoided objeclions:
noi did he make any, noi did he wanl any
lo be made lo him. Tis iule enleied his life
and became a habil; his lhoughls mechan-
ically followed lhe lhoughls of his inlei-
loculoi in all lheii aibiliaiiness…” (Vazov
:,,6: ,:) Te conveisalion belween Hadji
Smion and his neighboi Nencho Oieshkov
is emblemalic foi lhis lype of communica-
lion slialegy:
“Хаджи, днес имаме ясно време.”
“Много ясно време, Ненчо…”
“Май каквото гледам, идват облаци
от Балкана, хем са дъждовни.”
“Дъждовни облаци идат, Ненчо.”
“Ще завали и ще побърка на
харманя.”
“Ще завали, Ненчо, без друго ще
завали, хем едър.”
“Господ знай пак, има вятър от
запад, та ще разнесе дъжда (…)”
“И аз това казвам, ще го разнесе,
Ненчо.”
“Ба, дъжд няма да има (…)”
“Нито капка, Ненчо.”
Il is obvious lhal lhis model, seem-
ingly of absolule undeislanding, is in facl
a model of pseudo-undeislanding. Il is
pseudo-undeislanding, because il does nol
confoim wilh lhe mosl essenlial piopeily
of speech as an aclivily – lo co-opeialion,
wilh collaboialion. In lhis lype of conveisa-
lion all answeis, independenlly of lo which
lype of speech acl lhey belong, seem lo
funclion as expiessive speech acls. In olhei
woids, lhey lake on a chaiaclei of eliquelle
and convenlion. Te language usage heie is
moie inleiaclive lhan cognilive. Eveiy con-
slalive slimulus is lopicalized as a piompl
foi lhe conlinualion of lhe conveisalion
and lhe iesponse complies wilh lhis lopicali-
zalion.
Such a speech slialegy, howevei, is pos-
sible only undei ceilain condilions: agiee-
menl among lhe pailicipanls aboul lhe “iil-
ualily” of lhe conveisalion; one pailicipanl
knows lhal lhe olhei will nol accepl objec-
lions noi expecl his woids lo have any con-
sequences. Tis kind of model mighl aiise
in lhe “supeiioi–suboidinale” silualion (of
couise in lhe woisl possible vaiiely of lhis
aichelype).
Te piesenlalion of inleiaclive language
use as cognilive is also a model of lhe lype
“undeislanding as pseudo-undeislanding”.
Tis kind of language use could be called
“lhe Švejk model”. You can imagine whal
liouble I had when liying lo selecl one
singulai iepiesenlalive dialogue fiom lhe
whole book. So I chose one fiom lhe begin-
ning, which will exemplify lhe model. Tis
is lhe conveisalion al lhe police slalion.
Švejk enleis lhe inleiiogalion wilh lhe
polile:
To lhis inleiaclive language use Švejk
ieplies wilh a “cognilive”, i.e. makes a sub-
slilulion – veibally and non-veibally, while
foimally adheiing lo lhe given insliuclions.
To lhe queslion “Whal do you say:” wilh
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 167

RADKA VLAHOVA

which lhe police inspecloi vicloiiously con-
cludes lhe summaiy of accusalions againsl
Švejk, Švejk answeis lileially:
“Co lomu řikale”, vilězoslavně olazal se
pan s iysy zviřeci ukiulnosli.
“Je loho hodně”, odpověděl nevinně Švejk,
“všeho moc škodi”.
“Nu vidile, že lo uznavale”.
“Ja uznavam všechno, přisnosl musi bejl,
bez přisnosli by se nikdo nikam nedoslal.
Jako když jsem sloužil na vojně…”
“Dižle hubu!”, iozkřikl se policejni iada
na Švejka, “a mluvle, až když se vas budu
na něco plal! Rozumile:”.
“Jak bych neiozuměl”, řekl Švejk, “poslušně
hlasim, že iozumim a že se ve všem, co
iačeji řicl, dovedu oiienlyiova”
(Hašek :,,,: i,).
In lhis dialogue Švejk lhinks lhal
undeislanding is a molivalion foi co-opei-
alion. Howevei, since lhe undeislanding is
pseudo-undeislanding, so lhe co-opeialion
is pseudo-coopeialion, because lhe pailici-
panls speak wilhin lwo diffeienl fields of
language usage. Al fiisl sighl in lhis model,
flouling occuis in lhe unsuccessful use of
non-conslalive (peifoimalive) speech acls,
mainly diieclives. Tis is so only al an iso-
laled oveiview of lhe sepaiale slalemenls.
In lhe oveiall conveisalionldialogue, lhe
lack of success is on a diffeienl level and is
defined by lhe failuie of lhe inleiaclive and
cognilive language use lo coincide. I could
menlion many examples, bul I will limil
myself lo lhiee miciodialogues fiom lhe
following silualion – al lhe coionei's.
“Tak vy jsle ledy len pan Švejk:”
“Ja myslim”, odpověděl Švejk, “že jim
musim bejl, poněvadž i můj lalinek byl
Švejk a maminka pani Švejkova. Ja jim
nemohu udělal lakovou hanbu, abych zapi-
ial svoje jmeno”
(Hašek :,,,: ,().
To lhe slimulus, which piesupposes a
ieaclion like lhal in lhe expiessives, i.e. il
has a iilual chaiaclei in lhis lype of convei-
salion, Švejk iesponds wilh cognilive lan-
guage use and conlinues lhe model of lolal
undeislanding as a iesull of idenlifying lhe
pioposilional conlenl of lhe inleiloculoi’s
slalemenl as lhe liulh:
“Vy jsle ale nadiobil pěkne věci. Vy loho
male mnoho na svědomi.”
“Ja mam loho vždycky na svědomi”, řekl
Švejk, usmivaje se ješlě laskavěji než pan
soudni iada; “ja mam loho, může bejl, ješlě
vic na svědomi, než iačeji mil voni, vaš-
nosli.”
“To je viděl podle piolokolu, kleiy jsle
podepsal,” …
“Ale kdepak, vašnosli. Ja sam jsem se jich
oplal, jeslli lo mam podepsal, a když řekli,
abych lo podepsal, lak jsem jich uposlechl.
Přece se nebudu pial s nimi kvůli mymu
vlaslnimu podpisu. Tim bych si iozhodně
neposloužil. Pořadek musi bejl”
(Hašek :,,,: ,(–,,).
Tis example could be discussed as doc-
loi–palienl communicalion. Howevei, I will
nol dwell on lhis and inslead considei an
olhei momenl. Te manneis of communica-
lion in lhe dialogue aie mixed and lhis
leads lo disloilions in lhe pielensions of
validily. Each and eveiy speech acl musl in
an idenlical way salisfy lhe piesumplion
of inlelligibilily. When inlelligibilily leads
lo collapse in communicalion, lhe iequiie-
menl foi inlelligibilily may become lhe
lopic only lhiough a liansilion lo heime-
neulic discouise (and lalei in conneclion
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 168
CONVERSATI ON  STRATEGI ES OF UNDERSTANDI NG AND PS EUDO UNDERSTANDI NG


wilh ils ielevanl language syslem). Heie
we should nol oveilook lhe ciicumslance
lhal foi inleipeisonal ielalions lhe veiac-
ily of lhe pioposilion and ils ielevance aie
mosl impoilanl. Foi communicalion lhis
veiacily is also impoilanl. Il is exaclly lhis
ciicumslance lhal is mosl chaiacleiislic
foi lhe model we pieliminaiily called “Te
Švejk Model”.
Te slalemenls in queslion foim a nalu-
ial engine foi lhe developmenl of lhe dia-
logue. On lhe level of speech acls lhey aie
diieclives and lheiefoie incoipoiale lhe
diieclive componenl lhal conlains lhe slim-
ulus. Te speakei iequiies and expecls a
ieaclion lo whal he has said. Tis is how
lhese law-goveined manifeslalions lians-
foim inlo flouling in lhe Hadji Smion
model.
“А що: Русия готви ли се на бой:”
“С кого:”
“С него.”
“С кого:”
“С нашите де, с чалмата.”
“Неизвестно – каза подир малко
двоумение студентът.”
“Как неизвестно: Напротив, известно.”
“На какво основание мислите това:”
“Аз:”
“Да.”
Хаджи Смион го изгледа опулено.”
“Но вие искате да кажете, че е
неизвестно:”
“Да, поне за мен е неизвестно –
измънка студентът.”
“Речи го, че и за мене е неизвестно.
Имаш право, руската политика е много
тайна, а?”
(Vazov :,,6: ,i).
Tis conveisalion exhibils anolhei pecu-
liaiily of communicalive slialegies foi
undeislanding, namely lhe slialegy of
iesponsive pailicipalion. Tis is lhe placing
of one of lhe pailicipanls in lhe posilion
of a “quasi” echo-pailicipanl. We see lhe
conscious iejeclion of inilialive, because
in lhe conveisalion and lhe sepaiale micio-
dialogues nol only do lhe iecipiocal pai-
licipanls lake on lhe ioles of speakei and
lislenei, bul also alleinale in laking lhe ini-
lialive in leading lhe conveisalion and also
in achieving bolh co-opeialion and pailici-
palion.
Te expeclalions aie lhal in such a slial-
egy inleiiogalives will dominale and be
expiessed wilh lhe piagmalic pailicles “nali”
and “a” which piesuppose agieemenl oi
a posilive ieaclion, i.e. piecondilioned co-
opeialion. Howevei, when lhe piecondilion
is nol communicalively valid, we encounlei
a model conliaiy lo lhose we have analyzed
so fai. In lhis model on lhe suiface we have
no undeislanding oi pseudo-undeisland-
ing, wheieas in facl lhe inleiloculois coi-
ieclly decode lhe inlensions of lhe olhei,
bul liy lo ieacl as if lhis is nol so.
I am lempled lo call lhis model foi “Te
Bay Ganyo Model” – Aleko Konslanlinov
“Bay Ganyo” (Konslanlinov :,,o), bul lhal
would nol be complelely coiiecl, since il
is moie so a model iesulling fiom lhe lan-
guage behavioui lype Bay Ganyo. Lel me
iemind you of one of lhe fiisl sloiies:
“O–o–o! Добър ден! – и една потна
ръка сграбчи десницата ми.”
“Извинете, господине – казвам му аз
със смирено учудване, – аз нямам удо-
вол ствието да ви познавам.”
“Какво? Не ме познавате ли, кайш? Ти
нали си българин?”
“Българин съм.”
“Е:”
“Е:”
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 169

RADKA VLAHOVA

“Е хайде, ставай да се разхождаме.
Какво ще киснеш тука: Мен ме казват
Ганю. Ставай!”
Нямаше нужда да ми казва, че е
Ганю.
“Извинете, г-н Ганю, аз не съм сво бо-
ден сега.”
“Ами че какво стоиш в кафенето, като
не си свободен:”
“Ставяй да ме водиш на баня. Де е тук
банята:”
(Konslanlinov :,,o: :().
A “You aie Bulgaiian, aien’l you:” is
giounds enough lo waid off any fuilhei
allempls al behaving diffeienlly fiom whal
lhe speakei expecls.
A well-known example is fiom Bay
Ganyo at Jireček's I would like lo empha-
size lhe facl lhal lhe aulhoi A. Konslanli-
nov who in lhe iemaining sloiies lels Bay
Ganyo piesenl himself lhiough his speech
behavioi, in lhis chaplei il is as if lhe wiilei
cannol iesisl lhe lemplalion of ¨ievealing¨
Bay Ganyo's inlenlions. In lhe veiy begin-
ning we iead: “…ще иде Бай Ганю у него:
“Добър ден” – “Дал ти бог добро” – и може
да го покани в къщата си…” (Konslan-
linov :,,o: (o) Tal is, lhe expeclalions
of lhe speakei, lhal lhe eslablishmenl of
conlacl lhiough expiessives – lhiough lhe
usual convenlional phiases of eliquelle –
is ieason enough lo expecl an invilalion
lo visil as a peiloculionaiy effecl. Once
again we delecl lhe piesence of a diieclive
componenl in lhe slimulus in lhis conveisa-
lion. Tus, on a speech acl level, lhe basic
poslulales fiom lhe language level aie con-
fiimed – e.g. lhe eaily consolidalion of lhe
impeialive as a mood in Bulgaiian language.
Heie is anolhei example. Te inilial aggies-
sive slialegy, as in lhe conveisalion wilh
lhe sludenl, is once again piesenl.
“О–о! Добър ден, бай Иречек, как си,
добре ли си? – извиква бай Ганю с един най-
приятелски тон, щом влиза в кабинета
на стопанина.”
Again Bay Ganyo paiiies Jiieček’s aslon-
ishmenl wilh lhe pielensions of commu-
nily.
“Вий нали бяхте министър в София:”
“Да.”
“Е, и аз съм от там! – заключава
тържествено бай Ганю.”
(Konslanlinov :,,o: (:).
Following lhis inlioduclion lo lhe con-
veisalion lhal piecedes lhe aclual aim, A.
Konslanlinov piefeis lo explicale lhe inlen-
lions himself: “Разговорът продължава
няколко минути в този тон, сетне
минува на по-практическа почва: бай
Ганю хвали квартирата на стопанина,
загатва му доста осезателно, че “най-
сетне, има място и още един странен
човек даже да се прибере тука”. “Иречек
се старае да му внуши, че квартирата
е тясна за домашните му. Бай Ганю
си прави оглушки и развива темата за
българското гостоприемство” (Konslan-
linov :,,o: (i).
Te lwo pailicipanls’ inlenlions aie cleai
lo each olhei. Bolh of lhem have lheii own
ideas of lhe maxim of polileness. One wilh
an inheienl lo his behavioi polileness, and
lhe olhei wilh lhe pielence of polileness,
which is a componenl foi lhe success of lhe
slialegy. Te backgiound knowledge aboul
lhe communicalive silualion and lhe inlei-
loculoi piesumes lhal polileness mighl be a
componenl foi lhe slialegy’s success. “Утре,
ако щеш, води ме по всички фабрики, аз
съм съгласен; ще ми превеждаш, че не
знам езика, а?”; Па ако обичате, съгласен
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 170
CONVERSATI ON  STRATEGI ES OF UNDERSTANDI NG AND PS EUDO UNDERSTANDI NG


съм и у вас да остана, докато съм в Прага.
А?” (Konslanlinov :,,o: (i). Te use of lhe
convenlional foimulae of polileness is heie
also a kind of “insuiance” in case of iejec-
lion (which lhe speakei alieady expecls
in lhe oulsel of lhe conveisalion). Tese
foimulae also piovide a possibilily lo make
a new move. “Ако щете, санким, няма
да те пресилвам”, “Казвам, санким, ако
обичате – обяснява сплетено бай Ганьо”
(Konslanlinov :,,o: (i).
Lel me iemind you lhal in lhe spheie of
speech acl diieclives, lhe indiiecl speech
acls aie lhe mosl numeious. Labeling a
numbei of ulleiances which aie nol impeia-
lives, as diieclive ulleiances – foi exam-
ple inleiiogalives, is a iesull of lhe naluial
desiie lo find lhe mosl appiopiiale slialegy
foi lhe success of lhe diieclive acl, i.e. nol
only lo achieve one's illoculionaiy aims –
lhe heaiei lo idenlify lhe slalemenl as a
diieclive, bul also lo achieve lhe coiiespond-
ing peiloculionaiy effecl, lhal lhe lislenei
will iespond wilh lhe desiied aclion. Te
diveise indiiecl speech acls ieflecl diffei-
enl slialegies wheie lhe speakei chooses
language expiessions lo make lhe heaiei
believe lhal whal lhe speakei wanls him lo
do is lhe heaiei's own decision, his own will.
Tus in oui example Bay Ganyo accompa-
nies his desiie wilh lhe declaialion “I agiee”,
as if ieplying lo an offei. In bolh cases lhe
final passages conlain lhe inleiiogalive ¨A:¨
in lhe meaning “nali”, i.e. a piompl foi lhe
iesponse “Da”, a ieaclion of agieemenl. Te
whole chain of slialegic moves has been
shoilened due lo feai lhal il mighl piove lo
be unsuccessful. Te aclion is “va banque”
wilh lhe allempl al facing lhe inleiloculoi
wilh an accomplished facl and lo imply
whal he is expecled lo say.
Il seems lo be a combinalion of lhe slial-
egies we have menlioned so fai lhal we
find in Švejk in lhe conveisalion belween
lhe seciel agenl Bielschneidei and lhe inn-
keepei Palivec.
[…] Hostinský Palivec myl tácky a Brea-
mrně snažil navázat s ním vážný rozhovor. …
“To máme pěkné léto”, navazoval Bretschnei-
der svůj vážný rozhovor.
“Sloji lo všechno za hovno”, odpověděl
Palivec, ukladaje lacky do skleniku.
“Ty nam lo pěkně v lom Saiajevu vyvedli”,
se slabou naději ozval se Bielschneidei.
“V jakym Saiajevu:”, olazal se Palivec, “v
lek nuselskej vinaině: Tam se peiou každej
den, lo vědi, Nusle.”
“V bosenskem Saiajevu, pane hoslinsky.
Zaslřelili lam pana aicivevodu Feidinanda.
Co lomu řikale:”
“Já se do takových věcí nepletu, s tím ať
mně každej políbí prdel”, odpověděl slušně
pan Palivec […]
(Hašek :,,,: :o).
Afei lhe innkeepei explicilly and unam-
biguously has announced his ieluclance
lo be diawn inlo a conveisalion aboul a
dangeious polilical lopic, lhe seciel agenl
makes anolhei allempl.
[…] “V tom Sarajevu muselo to být asi
ošklivý, pane hostinský”.
Na lulo zaludně přimou olazku od po-
věděl pan Palivec neobyčejně opalině:
“V tuhle dobu bývá v Bosně a Hercegovině
strašný horko. Když jsem tam sloužil, tak
museli dávat našemu obrlajtnantovi led na
hlavu” […]
(Hašek :,,,: :i).
As a conclusion we can say lhal all inhei-
enl iequiiemenls foi speech acls may be sal-
isfied on lwo levels: diieclly in lhe conlexl of
lhe slalemenl – whelhei iesoiling lo expe-
iience, ielying on lhe ielevanl noimalive
convenlions, oi indiieclly – in discouises oi
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 171

RADKA VLAHOVA

in lhe afeimalh of lhe consislenl aclions.
Te iequiiemenl foi juslificalion, which
we assume wilh iegulaloiy non-conslalive
speech, acls, ielale diieclly lo lhe pielension
lhal lhe speech aclivily fils in one noima-
live field and in a piaclical discussion lhe
validily of lhe noim ilself is lesled.
Te speakei and lhe heaiei may incile
each olhei lo iecognizing lhe pielensions
of validily
• lhiough lhe pielension of liulh – lhe
iequiiemenl foi molivalion
• lhiough lhe pielension of coiieclness
– lhe iequiiemenl foi juslificalion
• lhiough lhe pielension of veiacily –
lhe iequiiemenl foi ieliabilily
Tus we ieluin lo lhe lheoielical basis
of lhe ieasoning. In lhe end I would like
lo ieveil also lo lhe image I used in lhe
beginning of lhe lecluie. I hope lhal in ils
window lhe iefleclions of my inlenlions
and youi expeclalions weie successfully
blended inlo an image of undeislanding
and co-opeialion.
резюме
Σ
Диалогическая речь: стратегии понимания и псевдопонимания
В статье рассматриваются стратегии в диалоге в свете философских идей
о речевых актах и интерактивном говорении. На основе образцов мировой
литературы на славянских языках обособляются три модели. Они представляют
различные стратегии вербального общения и языковые средства их реализации.
References
Auslin :,,,: Austin, J. L. How lo do Tings wilh Woids. – I I ed. – Оxfoid – London – New Yoik.
Kempson :,,,: Kempson, R. M. Piessuposilion and lhe delimilalion of semanlics. – Cambiidge
(Mass.).
Konslanlinov :,,o: Константинов, А. Съчинения. – Т. :. – София: Български писател.
Habeimas :,8(: Habermas, J. Was heissl Univeisalpiagmalik: – In: J. Habeimas, Voisludien
und Eigaenzungen zui Teoiie des kommunikaliven handelns. – FiankfuillM :,8(, s.
,,,–((o
Habeimas :,88: Habermas, J. Handlugen, Spiechakle, spiachlich veimillelle Inleiaklionen und
Lebenswell. – In: J. Habeimas, Nachmelaphysisches denken. – FiankfuillM :,88, s.
6,–:o,
Hašek :,,,: Hašek, J. Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války. Československy spisovalel. –
Piaha, :,,,, vydani i,.
Vazov :,,6: Вазов, И. Събрани съчинения в ii т. – Т. (.
11 Vlahova.indd 16.10.2002, 23:52 172