1.4.2. The polyphonic subject of the statement as basic unit of the semantic analysis

The category of the subject in language has first of all syntactic roots and concerns, as a rule, a paradigm of typology of models of the offer as to a method of the system organisation of syntax: «From the point of view of the system organisation of syntax the offer model appears as unit of a partition of all set of various offers of a language reality as whole.

As a part of models, in their internal device distinctions in the form and value of the main components are relevant here not them obshchegrammaticheskoe predicative value which unites all models, and. These semantical-grammatical distinctions on which models are compared and opposed, define concepts of type of the offer and of aspect of an interconnection between types — system orderliness, offer typology» [Zolotov 2001, 99-100 - is allocated by us A.CH.].

In language the category of the subject was considered from the point of view formalnosemanticheskoj. So, in Russian, to formal signs of presence /

Absence of the main sentence parts, A.A.Shakhmatov offered an asymmetric dichotomy two-member (always personal) and one-compound (nominative, infinitive, impersonal, definite-personal, indefinite-personal and obobshchenno-personal) offers [^k 1998]. Thus the category of "person" in Russian grammatikah is treated differently. G.A.Zolotov writes: "Term" the person »is used in linguistics

Ambiguously, but here [in tsit. To work — A.CH.] it means, that a subject position the name in the Nominative case (or its listed substitutes with value opredmechennogo occupies concepts). What reflects this grammatical establishment? First of all a recognition of the valid centrality in grammatical system, rate verbal-nominal (Ni—Vf) offer type. At the same time it is necessary to see here influence of logical-grammatical concepts and grammatik the European languages. From here — the narrowed, impoverished representation about the valid variety of forms of the first main member, the carrier of a predicative sign, neopravdannost syntactic opposition of the Nominative case indirect, the broken, displaced parity of syntactic, morphological and semantic signs in representation about a subject »[Zolotov 2001, 102].

Academician V.V. Vinogradov considers values of the person at a verb as a scale going from the least multiple-valued form (1 person) through semanticheski more extensible forms of 2 and 3 persons, further — through indefinite-personal value — to elimination of the person and impersonality [Vinogradov 1986, 458-463]. V.V. Vinogradov the term «elimination of the person» defines those cases when the speaking designates only one action, as though "not caring" about the operating subject [In the same place: 462]. It considers elimination of the person as an element in gradation of expression of the subject with different degree of definiteness.

In the French language there is no correlation between some formal and semantico-syntactical types subject reprezentativov. For example, a basis nuclear model of a syntactic field of impersonality is pseudo-semantic, i.e. formal, the pronoun il, semanticheski in any way 3rd persons not connected with a pronoun and assuming certain distribution of semantics of verbs: ilpleut / ilpleure (it is raining / he cries), but, occasionally, at P.Verlaine we meet: «Il pleure dans mon creur comme il pleut sur la ville» («In my heart it is cried as it is raining over a city»).

On the other hand, impossibility for analytical French language to use omission of the formal subject in the majority of syntactic models distinguishes it from morfologicheski the independent, verbal person issued at the expense of inflexions in Russian: « I go and see: you trudge, unsteady ». Thus, from four possible ways of a look of the figure (the Hook 1998 see [85]) in the French language prevails« syntactic — on communication with an office pronoun which, having grammatical signs of a syntactic word, nevertheless morfologicheski is not a part of the verbal form: frants. je parle, tu parle (s), il parle »[In the same place]. It leads to E.Benvenista to definition of a category of the person at verbs and pronouns as imposing of two correlations: persons (opposition of 1 and 2 persons 3) and subjectivity (opposition of 1 and 2 persons - the sender and the addressee). The Third party for it — not-person as it has character of a substitute, about uncertain value of the person he speaks nothing, though to this value difficultly to attribute a substitute role [Benvenist 1974, 290].

After V.V. Vinogradovym V.G.Gak represents process of generalisation up to elimination of the person of the figure as follows: 1) the is concrete-personal subject (with internal gradation from singularity to plurality); 2) the cumulative subject (we with you); 3) the collective subject (group of students); 4) the indefinite-personal subject (knock); 5) obobshchenno - the personal subject; 6) the vaguely-index subject (it); 7) the eliminated subject (knocks!) ; 8) impersonality (bessubektnost: the Hook 1998, 86-87] dawns) »[. He underlines, that the indefinite-personal subject occupies middle position on a scale of elimination and generalisation of the person. Referring to V.V. Vinogradova, V.G.Gak considers, that in it the direct or latent relation to the manufacturer of action what the animated being is remains. The animated substratum of indefinite-personal forms proves to be true two facts: replacement possibility their passive designs with the eliminated subject (a field have ploughed — the field is ploughed) (V.V. example. Vinogradova); the special indefinite-personal pronoun on, going back to a word ' the person ' (homme) [In the same place] exists that circumstance, that in the French language, for example. The obobshchenno-personal pronoun can often act in a role of a substitute of 1-2 persons:« On a marre de tes conneries "(" your tricks »Have bothered) or« Tiens, on ne dit plus ‘ bonjour! ’? »(That, any more« we greet? »).

With some amendments we will allow to result V.G.Gaka's opening the basic (primary) functions explicit (dejkticheskogo) of the subject in the French language and secondary function of neutralisation the scheme (compare [^k 1998, 87]):

Table 5. Opposition and neutralisation in the field personalnosti in the French language (on V.G.Gaku)
Opposition: The certain person (I, you, it...; ie, tu, il) The uncertain person (on)
Neutralisation: The generalised person
Reduction (elimination) Impersonality

Thus, the generalised person is understood as the subject diffuznyj (sinkretichnyj), combining in itself and odushevlennost, and the inanimateness which reviewer is defined situationally (izotopicheski), «here and now». It is pragmatic [Stepans 1981а] and in many respects depends on usage. So, in the French language there are two pronouns, serving the uncertain person: animated «on» and inanimate "yes". However as neutralisation they have different is functional-semantic distribution, depending on situational usage: «On sonne» (Call at a door) and «Qa sonne» (the call on change - shk Rings.).

So, we can observe on an example of a category of the subject as syntax, "sprouting" semantics, some polyvalent semantic subject with bolshej or smaller degree eksplitsitnosti [CHervonyj 1995] which can have the reviewer both animated generates, and the inanimate substance operating, worrying, undergoing influence etc. the Subject ceases to be connected with a nuclear syntactic design (as a sentence part), tends to is formal-semantic transformation etc. By V.G.Gaka's definition, obobshchenno-personal value can be expressed as by reconsideration of definite-personal value (for example, it is typical for Russian where forms of 2 persons grammatikalizovalis in this value: One must reap as one has sown), and by form reconsideration neopredelennolichnogo values (it is characteristic for the French language where the pronoun on along with indefinite-personal value naturally expresses also obobshchenno-personal value: On recolte ce qu'on a seme) »[the Hook 1998, 87]. In that and other language such forms correlate with a generalisation category [Andittt 2012] and are used in sayings, proverbs, etc. paremijah.

As we see, semantics is fraught pragmatikoj (about the integrated semantics, including to the pragmatist [see Fauconnier 1984]), and the offer, keeping the status of sintaksiko-semantic model (G.A.Zolotov), turns to the statement which differs as the offer staticized in speech by the characteristics noted by V.G.Gakom: situativnostju (dejktizatsiej, occurrence of "speech words» [Ducrot 1980]); selectivity (temarematicheskimi transformations, moving semantiko - pragmatical focus of a proposition); a compression and redundancy (omission of elements, ellipsis and duplication of elements, a pleonasm); an orientation (menoj "points of view" speaking and the addressee, «the subject - objective» or "subject-subject" relations, for example: «Qu’est-ce que c’est beau!» Or «Qa s’appelle ‘ Reviens! ’» - shk. «I give with return!».); informativnostju (allocation of the relevant information, adequacy presuppozitsii and propositions etc.) ; efemernostju (lokutsiej «here and now»: as bible «C’est toi qui le dis» - «You have told»), etc. (compare [the Hook 1998, 257-260]).

However, plunging together with statement categories in speech, we expand and ipostas the subject, representing it as saying the statement (enuntsionalnyj the subject) as carrier defined intentsii and speech intention to make this or that speech certificate (intentsionalnyj the subject) as participant of a proposition of the statement (protagonist) and, at last, as to-subject, or "object-subject" (the recipient, or the addressee), meaning, that in each statement is present «the factor of the addressee» [Arutyunov 1981]. Here we strongly become on a position dialogizma, assuming, after M.M.Bakhtin, that «the unique reality of language is a dialogue». Hence, in each concrete sender (JE) the addressee (TU) [Bakhtin 2000] is reflected.

Philosophically-is metaphoric this subject-subject dialogical unity is shown French (and is faster east) by a parable about two friends: «Apres avoir jeune sept ans dans la solitude, l'Ami s'en alla frapper a la porte de son Ami. Une voix de l'interieur demanda: Qui est la? - C'est moi, repondit l’Ami. Et la porte resta fermee...Apres sept autres annees passees au desert, l'Ami revient frapper a la porte. Et la voix de l'interieur demanda: - Qui est la? L'Ami repondit: - C'est toi! - Et la porte s'ouvrit» (TSit. On [Coquet 1984]).

Deducing the subject for offer frameworks, and then and statements, we spend not dividing, vertical, and connecting, horizontal line between "language" and "speech" and, after N.N.Boldyrevym, we consider, that at functional-semiologicheskom the approach (sintaktika - semantics - the pragmatist) language acts as uniform object — language-speech that allows to consider interaction of its two aspects: static and dynamic, system and functional (dejatelnostnogo) [Boldyrev 2001].

Verbs propozitsionalnogo relations «I think, that...","I believe, that...», I consider, that... »Have"worrying"(V.G.Gak's) subject intentsionalnogo the subject. They if to return to E.Benvenista's dichotomy (see above), and are a kernel of subjectivity or« a subjective modality »[Vitgenstein 1994; propozitsionalnye predicates 1987], sinkretichno combining speaking and intentsionalnogo the subject"modusa"statements when the proposition expresses a certain state of affairs —"objective"— from the point of view of speaking.

Thus, the problem of the subject of the statement (instead of offers) leads us to a dichotomy "subjective" / the "objective" point of view.

One point of view can correspond epistemicheskoj, a subjective modality and has mental character. «It takes place in mind speaking (but can and not take place actually» [Shatunovsky 1996, 174]. Accordingly the objective modality does not depend from

propozitsionalnogo relations also remains out of intentsionalnogo the subject «objective property of the objective validity» [In the same place].

It is necessary to specify once again, that ontologically the subject has three ‘ ipostasi ’: I - speaking (Enuntsiator); I - reflexing and intentsionalnyj (the Worrying subject - on the Hook) and I - operating (protagonist - on the Hook) [the Hook 1998, 559-560]. E.M.Volf writes: «When we speak to me boringly, he was delighted, here ES [an emotional condition - Amp-hr.] it is realised by the subject and it is interpreted by means of corresponding predicates. Speaking in these cases it is impossible to identify with the feeling subject, he takes a detached view of it as though even if it is a question about

Introspection. Thus, the structure ES consisting of subject ES, predicate ES and the reason, can be included in a modal framework as though "the second order" where enter, eksplitsitno or implitsitno, the subject - the observer and a supervision predicate »[Problems 1989, 68 and a trace.].

Thus, there is a category of an emotionally-estimated framework round a proposition (maintenance) of the statement [Arutyunov 1988; Volf 1985; 2002; the Hook 1984; 1998], and both of them are surrounded in real speech diskursivnokommunikativnoj by a framework including speaking and its interlocutor, responsible for deontologiju speech interaktsii (the introduction into speech contact, dialogue maintenance, an exit from communications etc.) [the Hook 1998].

Hence, the triune subject of the statement can be presented as the subject of three frameworks, three situations: 1) dejatelnostnoorganizatsionnoj (a dialogue situation); 2) speech (diskursivnoj) and emotionally-estimated and 3) propozitsionalnoj - Alfyorov 2001]) compare [: the Scheme 3. Three ipostasi the subject in the French statement

Where - Je enon5ant (I - Enuntsiator); — Je intentionnel (I -

Intentsionalnyj, the worrying and reflexing subject) and - Je

actant (I - protagonist, a character). Accordingly the addressee of the message can be designated as:, — Tu ecoutant et intentionnel (You -

Listening, intentsionalnyj, the interpreting addressee); — Tu -

reactif (You - reacting). In a proposition can operate as the person, and not-person [Benveniste 1966] — II act designates a position protagonista 3 persons. And, if I and You are in interaktsionalnyh relations («the subject -

Subject »), 3 person (or"not-person"on Benvenistu) makes with first two interactive ("subject-objective") relations, irrespective of odushevlennosti/inanimateness of object.

In kognitivnoj such interaction by means of the statement is represented to linguistics first of all as an exchange of knowledge for the purpose of construction of the general kognitivnogo spaces of interlocutors [Bulygin 2003]. The typology of knowledge and their participation in kognitivnoj "transaction" are described by O.Jokojama [Jokojama 2005]. Naturally, the carrier of knowledge in such transaction is the language message.

The nominative typology of the subject (in concrete incarnation "person") basically is simple. V.G.Gak marks: «the Person can be designated in speech, proceeding from different signs in this connection following types of a nomination of the person in speech are allocated:

— A proper name;

— giperonimicheskaja a nomination: the person, the person, the person;

— A demographic nomination (an age, sex, a trade, prois - circulation, a nationality): the old man, the girl, the mechanic, the Parisian, the Frenchman);

— The functional nomination specifying in communication of the person with action carried out or undergone by it: the reader, wounded;

— The relative nomination showing correlation related, professional, etc. the given person with another: the brother, the patient;

— An estimated nomination: the good fellow, the villain, this donkey;

— A pronominal nomination: pronouns personal, index,

Relative »[the Hook 1998, 579].

1.4.3. The subject in object and object in the subject

Category of "condition" widely developed in Russian philology will neutralise opposition «odushevlennost/inanimateness». On the foreground the opposition "person/impersonality" acts. However, having analysed French

Material, absence of correlation in synonymous statements of Russian and French of languages is necessary to note. Sr:

At once we will make a reservation: the resulted statements semanticheski, or referentsialno, are synonymous, since the subject situation, denotat coincides them «. We mean two certain weather phenomena and their"language-speech"representation.

At first sight, the resulted statements differently represent semantics of the subject on parametre "obektnost" (formal absence of the subject of the offer, the figure ») /"subektnost"(subject - presence ^ i/e?), and also the subject-objective of the relation. Only phrases I6 and IIb incorporate markers of the relation to the semantic subject in an addition - role ekspirientsera (I6) and a subject-ekspirientsera (IIb). In the others the semantic subject (animated) or is absent (the impersonal! And and 11а, 111а, and 1Уа, or implitsiruetsja as the subject of an estimation in expressional 1в and 11с. Independently there are phrases 111в and 1Ус and partially 1в in which semantic space there is an inanimate subject in a subject or nominative role.

However, first, behind all them costs enuntsiator - it ekspirientser, generating these statements as a result of influence on its different pertseptivnye modules (on J. Fodoru [Fodor 1986]), and in this sense all of them are subjective as expression of perception speaking. Placed in dialogue, they can be denied as false from the opposite point of view the interlocutor. Even

"psevdopovestovatelnye" (descriptive) SHv and IVc, as, for example, taken out of context Pushkin, apparently, deskriptivno-estimated «the Frost and the sun - day wonderful!», carry out argumentativnuju function under the formula «if... That»: «That you doze, the friend charming? - It is time, the beauty, wake up!»..., the same as «Si le vent soufflera, on repartira...» (R. Sechan), or the indirect speech certificate of the request:

«- Il y an un courant d’air» (= «Fermez la fenetre!»).

The presented comparison, in our opinion, proves, that the semantic subject is connected not so much with semantics of a separate phrase (offer), how many with that final interpretantoj, which transforms "subject-objective" of the relation as result of influence of the external factor on statements speaking (i.e. object influence on the subject) in "subektsubektnye" the relations assuming inferentsii (conclusions) of interpreting (analyzing) addressee.

V.G.Borbotko marks: «When in a discourse there is so-called author's"I"it"I", even concerning the person speaking, do not coincide with it. It represents one of possible positions,"instances"speaking which its consciousness correlates as an operand to some other operand, a speech subject. Essentially that the director of photography, or reflektirujushchaja the instance from which any establishment of conformity proceeds, is never presented in a discourse by the separate form, it always stays« behind a shot », existing only in the derivative sizes. [...] If to accept, that the consciousness is for itself simultaneously both the subject and object of a reflexion there is a paradoxical situation. To carry out a reflexion, the consciousness should make at first «a reflective exit», that is take of an external position in relation to itself. However the consciousness cannot fall outside the limits itself and, nevertheless, it carries out a reflexion. Owing to that reflexion process is immanent to consciousness, apparently, not reflektirujushchaja the instance «takes of an external position» in relation to reflektiruemoj, and on the contrary, business is so, that reflektiruemaja the instance gets to an internal position in relation to reflektirujushchej.

The reflexion is a reflexion by consciousness itself, a certain doubling of a fragment in space of images of the world therefore consciousness gets ability to operate in the own images. As a result of self-reflexion the consciousness is split on two instances — reflektirujushchuju, active, acting in a role of the operator of a reflexion, and reflektiruemuju, "passive" which is object of a reflexion and simultaneously image, "copy" of its subject »[Borbotko 2010, 67-68].

Thus, the subject can become "object". It occurs, first of all, when the subject of the statement or implitsiten (i.e. it is suspected), or eliminirovan owing to its nonparticipation in process (111в and 1Ус), or is passive and undergoes a certain condition (J’ai froid; Je suis malade, etc.).

The intermediate form are offers where the noun «in the Nominative case designates not the sign carrier, and the predicative sign, attributed to the subject expressed by other nominal form, for example:« to the Kid year; At the patient a radiculitis; With the aunt a faint »[Zolotov 1982, 103];

If to consider sign polifonichnost the subject (syntactic, semantic and pragmatical), it is possible to confirm vzaimoperehod in a category field personalnosti the subject in object and on the contrary. In any passive offer of type «the House is under construction workers» there is a divergence between semantic and syntactic subjects. The syntactic subject — is faster object, rather the reverse, as prompts to us deep SVO - structure «Workers build the house». Here we lean against the ontologic logic, therefore such offers, undoubtedly, much more in ordinary speech. However we often have mutual equality of the subject and object. For example the French so-called returnable pledge («Se livre se vend bien» - This book well is on sale) or its morphological korreljaty — mutual or kauzativno returnable forms: « Marie et Jean s'aiment "or" Je me suis fait voler ma valise a la gare »again prove a divergence between superficial syntactic structure personalnosti and deep semantic structure"subject-objective"of relations. Last phrase in general literally is not translated into Russian (« I at myself have forced to steal a suitcase ») and transferred simply as« At me have stolen... ». But if in Russian variant the subject - ekspirientser is passive and as though« removes from itself fault »the internal form of the French turn, on the contrary, underlines personal responsibility for« heedlessness "(" do not lead into temptation the near »or something similar). The internal form vozvratno-kauzativnogo pledge was naturally erased, and Frenchmen, as well as Russian, speak, naturally, about result, about the fact ' Someone has stolen '.

At pragmatical level — level of coding and sense decoding degree of semantic (ontologic) activity of the subject and object is shown. This level also defines the category form personalnosti and role positions of the semantic subject and object at syntactic level.

Thus, the transformations noted by N.Homskim [Chomsky 1964], really serve the logiko-pragmatical purpose of representation "subject-objective" of relations in the opinion of the addressee-interpreter.

Owing to asymmetry of the plan of expression and the maintenance plan it is possible to present mutual relations of the subject and object on semantikosintaksicheskom level. Here we face the phenomenon in detail studied and studied, named «semantic structure», or "diathesis". «The diathesis remains to most powerful of the linguistic tools used at an establishment of conformity between roles of participants (designated by a verb) to a situation and their syntactic positions. A diathesis allows to reveal hierarchy of communicative ranks, differently — hierarchy tematichnosti (topicality hierarchy) participants, the information about which is concluded in a set priglagolnyh syntactic positions and the information on semantic roles» [Paducheva 2004, 388] is not less important, than.

Substantial function a diathesis is represented as «process orientation» (V.G.Gak), or semantic "prospect" (C.Fillmor) from the point of view of the speaking subject. S.A.Krylov, for example, suggests to distinguish a diathesis covering of some levels of abstraction: () syntactic system of language depending on which personal a diathesis is initial, and impersonal — derivative of it (the Storm has transferred a boat on coast - the Storm has transferred a boat on coast), () the separate semantico-syntactical category of predicates; so, at "weather" verbs (verba meteorologica) it is natural to consider initial diatezoj impersonal (froze, shtormilo; dawns, drizzles, pulls dampness); at verbs ' indispositions ' (verba aegrotandi) — impersonal-painful (Petju znobit, sways, toshnit, tears, shakes, is in a fever...), at verbs ' eksperientsialnyh propensities ' — bezlichnoaffektivnuju (to me it seems, it is pleasant, it is represented, dreams...) Etc.; meanwhile in syntactic system of language impersonal-affective a diathesis is not initial, and at other verbs of feeling and perception acts only as derivative from initial personal (Nadja cries - Nade it is cried) or personal propozitsionalnoj a diathesis (Frol thinks, that danger passed - Frolu is thought, that danger passed; Yaroslav believes, that we will win - to Yaroslav is believed, that we will win) ' etc. »[Krylov 2004].

To phenomenological knowledge as marks A.V.Kravchenko, other type of actually language knowledge — strukturalnoe knowledge resists. This knowledge is the form kategorizatsii the information received and processed not as a part of empirical experience of the individual, but as a generalising result of experience of generations, i.e. It belongs not to the individual, and language society as a whole, therefore for the language individual it is to the data, existing knowledge [Kravchenko 2004]. Therefore superficial roles of a category «the language subject» do not change its reality on deep, kognitivnom level.

Z.Derrida writes: «the Reality is born as the flash which has given, but at once and together with flash becomes clear, that given if it is given, never ceased to be to data and if it is given it already could not be put — given is given once and for all» (J. Derrida. Donner le temps. 1: La fausse monnaie. Paris, 1991. P. 24. - TSit. On [Marylin 2006, 9]).

Summing up, it is possible to notice, that the superficial transformations changing semantic roles of the subject (‘ the figure ’ - ‘ ekspirientser ’ etc.), only confirm a deep essence of sintaktiko-semantic structure of a category «the language subject: despite"objectivity"of the point of view reflected in superficial structure, the deep subject is a real source of the process becoming"point of view", a vector of orientation of communicative prospect in the superficial structure in many respects defined by the main structural centre — a verb.

One of characteristics of "point of view" is resulted by N.D.Arutyunov on an example of a dichotomy "event/fact". And, «categories sobytijnogo (ontologic) number» can differ among themselves on such parametres as static character/dynamism, graduirovannost/negraduirovannost, kulminativnost/nekulminativnost, productivity/nerezultativnost, homogeneity/negomogennost, countability/neschetnost, etc. These and to it similar signs are used at the description of values of predicates. For the second row distinctions to reality/gipotetichnosti signs, verifitsiruemosti/neverifitsiruemosti, the validity/lozhnosti are characteristic,

Assertiveness of/negativity (logic quality), on referentsii the subject (logic quantity) and to other lines used at classification of judgements. Essentially various two types of value correspond with the specified numbers of categories: sobytijnoe (in a broad sense) and propositive, or faktoobrazujushchee. Both values are connected with the offer and more often are expressed it nominalizatsijami. The first — full nominalizatsijami: Roses pleasantly smell - * the Pleasant smell of roses is known for all. The second — incomplete: Roses pleasantly smell-* that roses pleasantly smell, it is known to all. Having compared the resulted examples, it is possible to be convinced that full nominalizatsija concerns directly realities, and incomplete — to judgements about realities. This distinction implitsiruet and a difference in value of a predicate »[Arutyunov 1988, 104].

Extreme display gradualnoj scales «the personal person» — "impersonality" is so-called "impersonal" (see above). There is a question: whether «the language subject» as in superficial structures there is no formally expressed semantic subject of action should "impersonal" be excluded from a language category, and they are called often «subjectless designs» ("BK")? We in our reasonings come to negation of this negation. For this purpose there are, at least, two arguments: the first — kognitivnyj, the second — pragmatical.

The category «the language subject», as well as any other category, is thought as opposition of the protivochlena (true/lie, the statement/negation, etc.). It is unimportant, that some categories not dihotomichny, and gradualny (see above). These gradualnye scales on the poles have vzaimootritsajushchie subcategories of type P — not-r, or R (sign presence) — 0 (absence of a sign). The question on semantic primacy of personal designs was put for the first time by generating grammar for which any impersonal offer can be considered as derivative of the corresponding personal offer by means of a transformation rule [Homsky 2010] (see above). In another way French "psychomechanics" approaches to an impersonality phenomenon (G.Guillaume, Z.Muane, etc.) [Guillaume 1992; Moignet 1980]. According to these scientists, in BK the impersonal pronoun ' il ' corresponds to representation speaking about «the world person» who can be opposed "human face". All cases of use BK are considered from this position as united in respect of the maintenance by this value and non-productive. Such explanation is in many respects defined by formal syntactic structure of the French language: « In French language BK are allocated by formal criterion: they are formed finitnym by a verb in 3rd l. A unit ch. With an impersonal not referential "empty" pronoun ' il ' in a subject position. The impersonal pronoun ' il ' in BK carries out a role of a formal subject, and typologically in many languages (for example, in Russian) to it there corresponds a zero subject. The grammatical system of the French language demands, that finitnyj a verb in all inclinations, except an imperative, was used with a subject and co-ordinated with it in the person and number, let even this subject is formal »[Kordi 2004, 232]. However, besides leksikalizovavshihsja turns (basically« weather "," temporalnyh "and" bytijno-spatial ») Il pleut; Il est minuit / quatre heures, Il se trouve (que), etc. Or so-called"prezentativov": il y a ' is available ' and il est ' is ' (= to be, be, exist etc.) To that there is an ontologic explanation: the subject (person) is not imperious neither over forces of the nature, nor over time current, — to the majority of judgements with "BK" in the French language are synonymic (derivatives?) personal designs or perifrazy: Il fait frais = J’ai froid; Il se fait tard = Je ne peux plus (rester), or pseudo-personal (with subjectivity markers - actual or grammatikalizovannymi) «Ma maison est dans le Midi»; «La Tour Eiffel se trouve...» (See above, and tzh. The appendix II). Lowering a question of genesis and remoteness from the "internal" form of these designs, we will notice casually, that, according to some scientists, the impersonal design has special grammatical function, being way of passive transformation. Proceeding from the theory a diathesis and pledges [Holodovich 1979; Hrakovsky 1981], the impersonal passive should be considered as special a diathesis and, though

Formal expression of a verb does not differ from a personal passive, in the offer it is marked by an impersonal pronoun-subject.

E.E.Kordi considers, that grammatical value BK is bessubektnost processes and the phenomena designated by verbs and turns of given group. The rare uses of these verbs in personal designs have especially literary character and usually have a figurative sense. So, for example, in grammar Grevisse literary examples with meteorological verbs where in one case as the subject the God acts, in other — shells, bullets, etc. are resulted.:

— Dieu a-t-il tonne et eclaire? (Bossuet) - whether ' the God Has sent thunders and lightnings? '.

— Boulets, mitrailles, obus [...], pleuvaient (Hugo) - ' Kernels, bullets, shells [...], drop a rain »' - (TSit. On [Kordi 2004, 237]).

However, in our opinion, last examples obviously show "inclusiveness" of the subject speaking or the subject intentsionalnogo (expressing degree of intensity of process). Resorting to metaphors which become «a phenomenon providing understanding» [Lakoff 2008], the speaking subject so represents to the interpreter a subject situation, a parity of personal and "objective" impersonal processes, events of the facts. V.G.Gak, therefore, to a traditional triad dejksisa «I - here - now» add the fourth component «so, thus» which Hook 1998] enters into communicatively-diskursivnuju and modal-estimated frameworks of the statement [.

Even more "subjective" are «modusnye BK — most frequency of all BK the French language, having various values: modal values of necessity (il faut ' it is necessary ', il est necessaire ' it is necessary '), possibilities (il est possible ' is possible ', il se peut ' can be '), reliability estimations (il est probable ' it is probable '), values evidentsialnosti (il parait ' it seems ', il semble ' it seems '), a pragmatical estimation (il est facile ' it is easy ', il est difficile ' it is difficult ', il est utile ' it is useful '), a validity estimation (il est vrai), a positive and negative estimation of any action (il vaut mieux ' it is better ', il importe ' matters ', il fait bon ' is good ', il serait dommage ' would be insulting '), rate estimations, uzualnosti (il arrive ' happens ', il est rare ' seldom happens '), etc.» [Kordi 2004, 239-242]. Such modusnym to impersonal designs can be attributed intentsionalnyj (modalnoaksiologichesky) a subject prefix, for example «Je crois que...», «Je pense que.», «Je trouve que.», etc.

And, at last, from the point of view of relational grammar [Perlmutter, postal 1982], BK it is possible to consider as «fall in a rank» a subject in respect of expression when the impersonal pronoun is equivalent to subject omission, and, hence, the subject here is presented by a sequence (a verbal-nominal design following a subject with the "object" status). Hence, the subject is present, but does not take of a subject position. Such understanding corresponds to the concept of "point of view", an exchange of subject and addition roles. In other words, concepts actual (or communicative) offer partitionings «the Prague functional grammar». In personal offers the subject is a starting point (or a theme), and a predicate (predicate) — a statement kernel (or remoj). Offers in which the verb-predicate wins first place, and it followed by a designation of the subject, E.E. Kordi considers as not dismembered nuclear statement where is present rema, but the theme is not designated. «Thus, BK acts in this case as the tool of an actual division and its grammatical value is elimination of the subject from a subject and theme position» [Kordi 2004].

Indirect acknowledgement of subjectivity BK is its fixed orientirovannost not so much on speaking, how many on the person in general, i.e. Speech should be conducted about language anthropocentrism and its displays in various language structures. In particular, the basis (invariant essence) language in all it ipostasjah, being the anthropocentrism carrier is allocated kategorialnaja; this category is "point of view" — «system of the anthropogenous positions acting differently (that is actual it is virtual) in language, speech, speech activity and poetics» [Kravchenko 2004, 22-23]. Thus the term "point of view" is read as "site" — a place in space from which the object of perception [In the same place] sees. At such approach it is necessary to understand as the EGO not speaking, and the human individual learning the world, the participant of a speech exchange concerning the reviewer becoming both the manufacturer of the statement, and its interpreter.

In the thought spoken by language (information, sense) the experience given in sensations, or in perception "modules" [Fodor 1986] is reflected. By features of perception it is defined subektnost (subjectivity) as the property, language anthropocentrism explaining a priority and antropomorfizma which «are twisted in the fabric of language» [Lyons 1977, 690]. The anthropocentrism is «a starting point theoretical and practical activities of the person» [Kolshansky 1975, 86]. A basis

pertseptivnogo (phenomenological) knowledge make subjects, events, the phenomena which are projected as all possible between elements of the real world kinds of the relation, fixed in a diathesis, predicates, inversion or "elimination" of the superficial subject. Therefore language anthropocentrism and antropomorfizm are especially accurately shown in various sorts a diathesis, statement and text structure as spatial relations between the subject and object, between subjects and the phenomena of the validity perceived by the person. It also is the subject of perception as a reference point (point of view).

Orientirovannost on the subject of perception as a reference point, making kognitivnoe the maintenance of value of language units, it is peculiar not only to linguistic views. Such understanding is characteristic and for literary criticism, discourse theories — not a random factor of the observer as the element of interpretive model of language value last years was included into system of the philological analysis [Kravchenko 2008; Red 1998; Smiths 2003; Kunin 1978; Ladygin 1997; Magirovsky 2009; the French semiotics 2000; Eko 2007, etc.].

As marks A.V.Kravchenko, «speaking, describing in the statement any situation, has at the order lexical and grammatical means with which help it marks observability of this situation though unessentially in a role of the observer he should act» [as Kravchenko 2004, 19].

Ideas prazhtsev (functional grammar) in domestic linguistics, after R.O.Yakobson, are developed by V.G.Gak who represents expressiveness/nevyrazhennost of the semantic subject in a special way — through definition of a field of definiteness/uncertainty of the subject [the Hook 1998].

<< | >>

More on topic 1.4.2. The polyphonic subject of the statement as basic unit of the semantic analysis:

  1. the Reduction of the subject in semantic structure of a phraseological unit
  2. 5.1. Subjectivity/ objectivity in semantic structure of a phraseological unit
  3. the Reasons of a reduction of the semantic subject
  4. Implitsitnost the semantic subject in impersonal designs
  6. 2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject
  7. 4.1.1. Eliminatsija the semantic subject in passive designs
  8. 4.1.2. Latentnost the semantic subject in reflexive-passive designs
  9. 4.2. Metonimichesky expression of the semantic subject
  10. 1.4. The author as the subject of the statement in memoirs
  11. the speech certificate as minimum unit of the analysis of communications
  12. 4.2.3. Implitsitnost the semantic subject in polipropozitsionalnom the offer
  13. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun “on"
  14. a situation as unit of the analysis of the military-psychological phenomena
  15. 4.2. Elimination of the semantic subject by means of nominalizatsii