Ivan Mikirtumov

Introduction. The theory of generations by Neil Howe and William Strauss has become an integral part of “folk sociology” today, so that everyone somehow asks the question of which generational group he / she belongs to and what behavior is expected of him / her, in particular, in network communications. The behavior of representatives of different generational groups in network disputes based on self-identification remains no sufficiently investigated. In this article we present the results of an argumentative and pragmatic analysis of the specifics of the argumentation of representatives of generations X (born in the p eriod f rom 1 967 to 1981), Y ( born f rom 1 982 t o 2 003) and Z ( born a fter 2004), who fell into an uncomfortable situation of a network dispute.Methodology and sources. The research is of a qualitative nature and its task is to formulate well-grounded assumptions about the connections of generational groups with certain argumentative means, among which are rhetorical techniques, sociolect, speech actions. The material of the study was comments on entries in thematic groups, discussions in chats and on the ”walls” of social networks (”VKontakte”, ”Facebook”, ”Instagram”), as well as some other sources (”Avito”, ”Twitter”, ”Snob.ru”). The selection of material is focused on finding the typical. The research focuses on uncomfortable for the participants moments of disputes, understood as situations that are most prompting for an identifying self-presentation.Results and discussion. The materials studied make it possible to formulate the following assumptions. First, representatives of generations X, Y and Z use different techniques in difficult situations of network disputes. X apply the classic ”argument to age”. Y use the sociolect of trust and immediacy to shift the focus of the dispute, while in other cases they resort to a sociolect that contains a morally binding component. For Y a network dispute engenders a minimum of commitment and easily turns into a rhetorical skill competition. Z view network disputes as a platform for resolving negative affects. In an uncomfortable situation they use the techniques of verbal aggression, shifting the focus of the dispute to the justification of this very action. All three groups act in anticipation of the support of a sympathetic audience. The described types of behavior identify the representative of the generational group as for other participants in communication.Conclusion. The features of generational groups, which are indicated by sociological data, convincingly explain the strategy of behavior of their representatives in difficult situations of network disputes. But it should be borne in mind that such strategies themselves and the argumentative and linguistic means suggested by them become patterns of generational identity. The socio-cultural dynamics of generations is therefore also associated with how these patterns will change in connection with changes in the network communication environment.

The article deals with some problems of formalization of Russell's example with a yacht and Eugeniy Borisov's proposal concerning the usage of “object" affitudes. This idea seems wrong to me in terms of its contents, besides its formal realization fails. I believe that formalization of the example with a yacht must, firstly, take into account the pragmatics of the phrase's usage and, secondly, point at the mental representations of the objects. To do this, one can use propositions reflecting a technical aspect of semantic relations.

The article presents a concept apparatus of identifying and eliminating non-compositionality on the basis of intended sense reconstruction. First, two types ofnon-compositionality are delineated: pragmatically adoptable and logical. Thenon-compositionality ofthe first type has its source in underspecification of the meaning of an expression components, which is connected with non-expressible context-pragmatic conditions ofthesituation of an expression. The variants ofsuch non-compositionality are various, nevertheless allof them can be adopted with logical and semantic means. Non-compositionality ofthe secondtype is linked to the cyclic references which occur during the realisation ofthe procedure of defining the meaning. Sucha procedure is regarded as a semantic program which is capable of calculating the meaning of an expression with semantic and context-pragmatic parameters being given. The main question: howthe agents communication recognise thefactthatthe language expressions they generated are not adequate in regards of those mental representa- tionswhich constitute intended sense, particularly in the cases of non-compositionality. To answer this question the way of reconstructing intended sense is described. It includes differentiation of minimal and full senses of expression, and presupposes juxtaposing of context-pragmatic conditions of a speaker situation with the same conditions an addressee situation. If differences are uncovered which would make it impossible to achieve adequate understanding,then the parameters ofa speaker's situation are verbalised and stop beingnon-expressible turninginto obvious conditions ofthe stated. In the case of pragmatically adopted non-compositionality, full verbalisation of context-pragmatic conditions leads to obtaining full compositional meaning, which does not depend on a situation anymore. If it turns out, that logical compositionality depends on context-pragmatic conditions, then, depending on the aim of communication, it maybe localised and eliminated.