2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject

Speaking for transfer of thought on action uses semantiko - the syntactic structure corresponding to the logic, semantic frame “action of the subject”, that in turn leads to use speaking certain kategorialno-semantic groups of words.

However in practice a proposition “action of the subject” is exposed to language modelling and transformations [Mukhin 1968; Kleiber 1990].

Interface of subjective and predicative components in the certain form and with defined kategorialnym value (the figure — action — object) gives corresponding grammatiko-semantic structure which name offer model.

Typological correlation of the models describing action, assumes a conventional establishment of the signs which presence characterises the basic model, and their absence specifies in structural updating in its speech realisation [Gochet 1980]. From here follows, that there is a basic (nuclear) model of the offer with a preset value and equivalent to it on sense — peripheral models-transforms.

For a starting position of allocation of basic model of the simple sentence expressing action of the subject, the sign of conformity and full symmetry of the plan of expression and the plan of the maintenance of the offer — a proposition framed emotionally-estimated and diskursivnoj with frameworks which transform the offer into the statement is accepted. Thus, the offer model belongs to language, and placed in speech and dejatelnostnuju situations the offer becomes the statement. Table 3. Nuclear urovnevaja the model of the offer expressing

The subject-objective of the relation:
The subject Action Object
Ontologic level of the analysis The manufacturer


In the field


The subject

Object of influence (a subject, the tool, environment)
The semantic


The semantic subject - animated. The reasonable, active figure Actively -

The directed


Passive \the interactive

(‘ Je me suis fait vole une montre ’)



antroponim, a name


The personal


The having

Category of a sort,

Persons, numbers

The designated


The valid


Animated - an inanimate noun
The syntactic


Subject Predicate Addition

For us the structure of representation of semantic action in which it is functionally possible to allocate three basic components is defining:

1). The first component is connected with value, sootnosimym with that vnejazykovoj a situation, the information about which is transferred to the addressee. Described by us vnejazykovaja the situation consists of some type of action and its participants (the real figure - the subject and object of influence).

2). At semantico-syntactical level such vnejazykovuju the situation is displayed by a proposition consisting of a predicate and its arguments which are expressed by corresponding parts of speech.

3). Parts of speech are located in corresponding, set by a word order, syntactic positions.

The basic model of the offer is formed necessary for the adequate description of action by language means, by a primary nomination of components, its components, for the purpose of transfer of sense of the offer. In base model the semantic subject is expressed by a noun or a definite-personal pronoun, its action is presented by the verbs underlining purposeful character of influence on object, entering into a field of activity or relations of the subject at observance of the word order established in the French offer.

Thus, elements of base model are characterised by unity and conformity of semantic, morphological and syntactic signs. The central model, in our understanding, is based on principles denotativnogo semantiko-morfo-syntactic balance and if it is broken, we deal with peripheral model [Dominicy 1977; Dubois 1963]. The basic, basic model of the offer should be in denotativnom and the communicative plan independent of a context and a situation and if such dependence is found out, before us — a variant of the basic model [Kunin 1978]. The fullest is peculiar to the basic offer denominativnoe expression of the semantic subject. In variants of the basic model, at value preservation, the semantic subject is presented in a sentence structure in the reduced kind or implitsitno.

Forms of a reduction of the semantic subject form semantikosintaksicheskoe a field which represents the system uniting round initial structure its formal updatings [Vasilev 1971; Field structures 1989; Pauls 1995; SHCHur 2009]. Variants of basic model allow in a new fashion, variously to describe reality, to concentrate attention to its separate fragments.

If between different ways of expression same strukturnosmyslovyh components in syntax system there are paradigmatic communications, and set of expression of each component makes its paradigm, hence, it is possible to construct a paradigm of forms redutsirovannosti the semantic subject.

Base, prototypical structure of the French offer (compare [Perlmuper 1982; Serl 1986; Warnant 1982]) it is presented thus: Table 4. Basic model of the French offer

The figure-action-object
The syntactic plan S + V + Comp
The semantic plan Ag + Pr (Act) + Obj
Where S - the subject; V - a predicate; Comp - addition;

Ag - the figure; Pr (Act) - a predicate - action; Obj - object.

Making a start from base model, we have isolated sequence of forms of a reduction of the subject, existing in the French language (compare [Corbeil 1968]). Transformation of the base model, allowing to keep at superficial level of the offer a formal marker of the semantic subject, we name an explicit reduction. The vector of a direction of an explicit reduction of the semantic subject has a vertical orientation.

The scheme 3. A vector of a direction of an explicit reduction

From the resulted scheme follows, that the reduction of the semantic subject is embodied in a dejktiko-pronominal paradigm (compare the Scheme 3), and, referential washing out of the semantic subject in bolshej concerns degree: obobshchenno-personal and indefinite-personal semantics

Pronouns [the Hook 1965, 39].

In these two kinds of offers the subject exists only on existential-propozitsionalnom level of knowledge of the sender and the addressee (see above the nomenclature of knowledge on O.Jokojama) — the context or a situation are necessary for it referentsii. Depending on communicative intentsii, speaking, possessing referential knowledge concerning the subject, can present it in obobshchenno-personal or indefinite-personal forms in the pragmatical purposes (see more low).

Thus, we understand replacement as an explicit reduction denominativnogo an element reflecting referentsialnogo the figure, another, semanticheski the wide component which is carrying out, in case of extreme generalisation, elimination from informative focus of the statement or full ignoring of the subject, grammatical, front (asemanticheskuju) function.

The explicit reduction of the semantic subject occurs in different in the purpose of the statement offers.

1) In narrative offers the semantic subject expressed by a nominative lexical unit, depending on

The communicative reasons set forth above, can be replaced by pronouns “on”, “? a”, “qui”, “celle”, “celui” etc. For reception referentsialnyh knowledge of the semantic subject situational contextual support is required. Semantics of the given pronouns in separately taken offer a little that informs on the real figure.

2) In interrogativnyh designs the semantic subject is expressed by an interrogative pronoun "qui".

There is replacement S on S int: Quelqu ’ un court. ^ On lighted un livre. ^ Qui dit cela?:

Where S int — the interrogative subject.

Despite the insignificant information on the real figure, transferred by the given structures, offers with eksplitsitno the reduced semantic subject bolshee correspond to inquiry referentsialnogo knowledge in relation to designs where the semantic subject is absent. Full formal elimination of the semantic subject occurs in force transformatsionnyh the processes having the elliptic nature. The predicate position in this case raises in a rank, becoming the semantic centre concerning which are carried out interpretation interrogativa, irrespective of a part of speech: “Contentel - Oui, tres"; "Heureusel - Pas trap, tu sais”; “Pige? - T’rnquiete!”, etc. Such forms (speech stereotypes) are characteristic for not smooth dialogical speech in the French usage (compare [Aleksandrova 1987; Borisov 2007; Kustova 2009]).

Accordingly the name or a pronoun expressing the semantic subject, are mentioned by similar transformations which lead to bringing down and elimination of the subject from a superficial sentence structure. Absence of formally expressed semantic subject leads to erection in a subject position kategorialno other chasterechnoj and a lexical unit designating the tool, subjects of activity of the person,

Movement etc.: «A qui tu proposes gal» = Je ne veux pas, moi!; «Un train, encore?» = Je deteste? al; «Manger, toujours manger!» = Il faut manger pour vivre et pas vivre pour manger, etc.:

In system of language-speech there are no rigid lines, intermediate forms and crossing of different signs (dvuchlennost — odnochlennost, nominalizatsija — a verb) take place. Complexity of logic calculation of a field as systems consists in absence of accurate borders between the different phenomena: so, examples of intermediate forms are designs with prezentativami il y a, c ’ est + N. Crossing of differential signs occurs, if we distinguish two basic ways of fall of valency: a passive and nominalizatsija - on the one hand, and presence of unicomponent and two-member semantic structures - with another.

In that case the passive is two-componental structure, subject nominalizatsija - unicomponent, and objective - two-componental and consequently it is equivalent to a passive (see more low).

In offers at nevyrazhennosti the real figure to formal syntactic subjects can become nominalizirovannyj an element, a pronoun "se" or semanticheski empty “il” in an impersonal turn il at and + N.

Full, formal elimination of the semantic subject from syntactic structure of the offer we name implication of the subject.

Forms of implication of the subject of action are peculiar first of all to narrative offers.

For implication of the subject indirect, compensating ways of a designation of a real actant are peculiar. Formal elimination of subject Ag = 0 takes place:

1).) In impersonal designs: II se vend des livres:

In passive designs: La maison est construite:

In vozvratno-kauzativnyh designs: II s’est laisse prendre; il s’est vu decerner un prix:

In analytical verbal-nominal designs: Le canal est en construction:

2). Semanticheski the real figure implitsirovan with the help nominalizatsii:

Infinitive in polipropozitsionalnyh type offers: “J’entends chanter...”, which is classified as polunominalizatsija:

Subject nominalizatsiej: Le combat se poursuit.

Objective nominalizatsiej: a). Il y a despropositions;

b). C’est un combat.

3). Formally real figure is not expressed in nominal offers


Des cris.

In offers with a dependent proposition:

Apres la lecture.................

2). Implitsitno the semantic subject is presented in personal designs:

With centripetal verbs of type "devoir" (trouver, beneficier, subir, connaitre): II regoit une aide.

By metonimicheskoj replacements of the form of expression of the real figure: La ville travaille.

Implitsitno the semantic subject contains in imperative offers which are presented one animated or inanimate nouns which designates object of influence of not expressed real figure, or an infinitive expressing the categorical order which is turned to the real figure.

a) De l ’ eau!

b) Ne pas toucher la porte!

Absence at superficial level of the semantic subject allows to offer concept of a sintaksichesko-constructive reduction as which we understand the language and thinking work, directed on eliminatsiju is information an unessential syntactic element of the offer.

Isolating the offer validity fragments in which action is reflected, our consciousness is direct, and language indirectly, mark presence “the Person — the figure”.

Leaving eksplitsitno from a subject-predicative axis (S — Rg), the subject of a proposition nevertheless keeps the value at the expense of so-called priznakovogo a component, leaving in object of action the semantic trace, "position", "point of view". Hence, despite formal nevyrazhennost the real figure, in relations between subject and priznakovymi components semantic relations which are not always expressed remain, but always virtually exist.

In it feature of the language communications which essence consists what not all maintenance of thought finds an embodiment in language elements («the Principle abstraktivnoj relevance» on K.Bjuleru (see above), «Selectivity of the statement» on V.G.Gaku [the Hook 1973] etc. is shown, see tzh. [Grice 1979; Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1986; Sperber 1989, etc.]) and along with explicit ways of expression there is an area implitsitnoj information transfers [Luht 1982, 346].

In that case predicative communication of a predicate with the subject in the syntagmatic plan can not be designated, but it is potentially supported by the virtual paradigmatic plan.

Thus, intensionalnogo values and even formal elimination of the semantic subject in a syntactic sentence structure speak expression of the real figure by a lexical unit about variable signs of its expression. Thus, in the course of communications the designation of the semantic subject in the offer is not obligatory, that probably serves as one more proof in favour of the thesis about verbotsentricheskoj to the concept where the central component in the semantic plan is the predicate [Zolotov 1982, 183].

As marked E.Benvenist, “the predicative member is sufficient in itself since it determines the subject, the subject in itself is insufficient for the offer” [Benvenist 1974, 138]. However, happens, that the predicate also is subject to elimination in case of its communicative redundancy, for example, in some imperative designs.

The arising certain lack of knowledge of the semantic subject, caused by a lacuna in the syntactic plan of the offer, is compensated by semantics of a predicate, preliminary knowledge speaking, a context and a situation, therefore the reduction and implication of the semantic subject by appreciable image do not affect communications.

The designs offered by us in which the semantic subject is reduced in this or that form, make an is functional-semantic field, in which centre model with a multifunctional pronoun "on".

The choice of model with “on” as a system kernel is not casual, first, it is more close from all presented to the reference model designating "action of the subject”, secondly, it is most common in speech as replaces in the French language practically all paradigm of personal pronouns (see the Scheme 3), and, thirdly, the design with “on” is as though the general denominator for all other models [Vukovich 1974].

The isolated designs can basically semanticheski be equal to model with “on”. It allows the same situation “Action of the subject”, for example, “house Building” to present the whole paradigm of designs with bolshej or a smaller reduction of the subject. Thus the paradigm remains opened as not all virtually possible forms can be realised [In the same place: 177]. The paradigm (opened) forms of a reduction of the subject is represented to us in the form of sequence of variants of a proposition ' Here the house which is constructed... (Whom?)... ’:

Michel a construit la maison.

1). On a construit la maison.

2). Quelqu'un a construit la maison.

3). Qui a construit la maison?

4)? Qa a construit une maison (cet abruti de Pierre).

5). La maison s'est construite bien vite.

6). La maison est construite.

7). La maison est en construction.

8). Michel s'est fait construire une maison.

9). Une main habile a construit cette maison.

10). La construction de la maison s'est terminee.

11). Cette annee, il y an eu la construction de la Maison de culture.

12). C’est cette construction de maison qui mange tout mon argent.

13). On voit construire la maison.

14). L’annee 2011 s’est vue notre Maison de culture construite.

15). Voici la maison est construite.

16). Construire une maison, il faut s’y connaitre.

17). Je sais que Michel a construit la maison.

18). Il faut que la maison soit construite.

19). Je veux absolument qu’on construise cette maudite maison.

20). Enfin, notre maison a nous etc.

Last transformations (16-20) are complicated by the modal-estimated framework showing the attitude speaking to proposition, changing a modality (epistemicheskuju, volitivnuju, deontologicheskuju) and aksiologiju propositions. Such type of transformation can reduce or not reduce the subject, but they change its language image. Such designs also concern category periphery «action of the subject», transforming it propozitsionalnoe the relation, revealing in the subject those or other lines of the language person [Sentries 2007].

Thus, the deviation from initial model (a proper name - a pronoun - implication) aside "zatushevannosti", causes reductions of the semantic subject indirect, indirect ways of marking of the subject of action that generates the whole series concerning the synonymous offers connected by the general sense, which, varying, as a whole remains invariable (On {a} construit une maison) [Abrams 1995; Greimas 1964; 1986]. Change of the form of expression at preservation of the general sense of a category is reached by a semantic compression. In essence, the presented variants designate different steps kategorialnoj the abstraction expressing “action of the subject”.

Process of a reduction of the semantic subject, from reduced SR and implication to full semantic nevyrazhennosti ("ignoring"), leads, finally, svernutosti separate semantic links of the statement.

For the analysis of the models presented in the scheme with eksplitsitno - implitsitnym representation referentsii the subject we lean on two fundamental characteristics of the offer:

1). Its linearly-predicative (syntagmatic, superficial)


2). Its derivational predicative (paradigmatic, deep) a system erecting any offer to its nuclear derivational basis [of Fleas 1986].

At any step of a derivational stage probably to establish the syntactic unit forming a basis of paradigmatic manufacture of offers with the transformed semantic subject. In the structural and semantic plan as this unit the pronoun “on” which coincides with a base component of a syntactic paradigm acts. However it is necessary to notice, that between basic model and its derivatives (korreljatami) at preservation of a semantic core of a category “action of the subject” absolute sinonimii nevertheless cannot be, as the syntactic structure defines semantic [Gross 1977; 1978; 1981]. Any change in semantic structure leads to transformation in the syntactic. Nevertheless, so-called partial semantic duplication is one of the main properties of paradigmatic system, it represents itself as a basic basis of existence of a paradigm as invariantno-variativnogo a number [Henrichsen 1987].

The resulted models with the reduced semantic subject, rather semanticheski duplicating each other, reveal among themselves appreciable constructive differences that affects definitely their sense. Peripheral models in the information plan lose to reference model, but the individuality which clearly opposes to its all set of the forms met requirements of semantic equivalence is inherent in each such model. As it is possible to notice, in this parity of the form and the maintenance the known phenomenon asimmetricheskogo dualism of a language sign is found out, and possibilities are based on it relative sinonimichnosti. In a paradigm of the presented models with the reduced semantic subject distinction in the form of messages across (sintaktika a sign) and their semantic generality on a vertical (a paradigm, sequence, interpretant (see above)) is observed.

The further the model is from a base basis, the comes to light big it referentsialnaja dependence on a context or a situation. Thus, the presented scheme specifies in a divergence between the maintenance of cogitative display of the validity and its way reprezentatsii.

The resulted table of syntactic elimination of the semantic subject says also that ways nazyvanija and descriptions of the same event are diverse enough [the Hook 1992]. Action can be expressed not only through a nomination of actants, in it participating, but also thanks to the actants which have been not designated formally in the offer, but deduced, however, from sense of all proposition, from value of a predicate, a situation and a context.

At nenazvannosti the real figure its position virtually remains and can be if necessary filled.

The analysis of the presented is functional-semantic field of structures with the eliminated semantic subject specifies that value kategorialnogo fields "action of the subject” shares on three, two and, at last, its one component making. Transformation degree “action of the subject” depends on quantity semanticheski the filled syntactic elements which are a part of model [Chomsky 1964; Lakoff 1981; Homsky 2010]. The prototypical model of a category “action of the subject” is capable to be transformed in polipropozitivnoe the offer and to accept incomplete forms of expression [Pinto 1995].

Within the given concept, depending on a situation and a context, voleju speaking or objectively, the semantic subject is transformed. It is made because of redistribution a theme-rheme of roles of a described situation. However, despite all structural changes, invariable there is a value "action" and its manufacturer - the semantic subject - an actant. It — in the centre antropomorfnogo actions, for this reason the semantic subject in the centre of our scheme as the main character of the world about which he also speaks.

<< | >>

More on topic 2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject:

  1. the Reasons of a reduction of the semantic subject
  2. the Reduction of the subject in semantic structure of a phraseological unit
  3. 3.1.3. A reduction of the semantic subject a pronoun“qui”
  4. 2.2. A reduction of the semantic subject as display of functional dynamics in language
  6. 2.3.3. Divergences of lexical and grammatical structure of terms IJA and PJA
  7. § 2.3 Lexical and grammatical means of expression of intensity
  8. grammatical and lexical features of language of workers-visitors
  9. Lexical and grammatical implementers of an author's modality and the analytical media text: dejksis, modal verbs
  10. 1.1. A category of the subject in antropotsentricheskoj to a paradigm
  11. lexical and structural-semantic characteristics of a judicial discourse
  12. 3.3. A reduction of the subject and an offer and text actual division