3.2.1. A reduction of the subject a pronoun “qui” in the questions which are carrying out secondary function

The communicative role of the addressee consists in reciprocal verbal reaction (remark), reciprocal speech action, a plan and which execution as researchers consider, arises at the higher (realising) level of process of perception and understanding [Sentries 1987, 51-52], having, besides, the hierarchical structure, sense of words going from understanding and word-combinations to understanding of a plan of the subject - the author of a discourse.

The answer kommunikanta which that in a speech situation serially becomes the sender the addressee, can have the diversified forms.

Sometimes for the statement or negation of a certain fact what opinions, someone's judgement the speaking uses an interrogative design with a pronoun “qui” which it is capable to veil real protagonista (the action carrier). Kommunikanty possess a certain stock of knowledge (see above) which are identified with its ability to interpret speech of other person, to understand it and adequately to react.

The statement expressed by the interrogative form, has the illokutivnuju the purpose, and speaking expresses thus the speech intention.

The category “speech intention” (intentsija) is treated as “a known psychological condition” [Searle 1995], stimulating sotsialnoznachimuju communicative activity of the speaking. Concerning D.Follesdal's speaking in the course of communications intention noticed: “There is an uncertainty between understanding of the message and understanding of why the given statement has been made. When we consider the speech certificate as action, us this question” [Follesdal 1986, 144] should interest.

The syntactic form of a question is formed, as has already been told, in structure of a question-answer complex.

Primary function of a question, as is known, is intended for inquiry of the information on someone or about something. Being a full sign [the Hook 1973], the question includes a referential situation, a situation of dialogue, the participants of communications included in dejatelnostnuju interaktsiju etc. [Alfyorov 2001] and so forth Adaptation to concrete conditions of communications generates at forms of a question with a pronoun "qui" in role a subject the various secondary functions, one of which consists in concealment of the semantic subject. For example:

(66) «Hoederer: Qa peut provoquer la guerre civile.


Analyzed pronominal interrogativ, being a remark - reaction, expresses through the interrogative form negation of judgement put forward by the interlocutor. We will notice that fact, that the negative form of a verb grammatical is not designated. The pronoun "qui" obobshchenno represents and by that masks real enuntsiatora. Given interrogativnaja the design does not solve the initial problem: search of the semantic subject is not conducted, as the speaking denies interpretation which to it is attributed by the interlocutor.

Besides function of a refutation (counterargument), such rhetorical questions can express and the consent meaning absolute correctness of the interlocutor:

(67) «Le Maitre: Mais a ce comte, ton lot vaudrait mieux le mien.

Jacques: Qui vous le dispute? »= (Je ne vous le dispute pas; personne ne vous le dispute) (D. Diderot.« Jacques le Fataliste », p.89).

Interrogativy in similar function are used by the subject of speech on purpose to make replacement of the concrete subject on generalised and, thereby, more categorically to express the consent-disagreement with opinion of the interlocutor [Karasik 2008].

Separately taken, pulled out of question-answer unity, the question can cause difficulties of understanding. Dependence on a context plays a basic role for true interpretation (final interpretante - on the Pier) language expressions. For example:

(68) «Hoederer: Tu tiens an elle?

Hugo: Naturellement.

Hoederer: Alors, defends-lui de remettre les pieds ici. Quand j’ai a choisir entre un type et une bonne femme, c’est le type que je choisis.

p. 134).

In the given dialogue it is a question of employment. Last phrase can be truly interpreted only in a context of previous phrases. And, the hypothetical answer “Je ne vous demande pas de choisir” sounds not only less ekspressivno, but also is connected with a direct sense of an initiating remark. Actually here argument negation, in presuppozitsii which is realised: «Un homme vaut mieux qu'une femme», and possibility of such negation is put in pawn in the form of the argument: «I would choose...». From here counterargument — «And who asks to choose you?». Such speech strategy of the argument and the counterargument, also are constructed on asymmetry of the plan of expression and the maintenance plan.

The main role in understanding of questions is taken away presuppozitsii which predetermines occurrence of the given remark and allows to use those semantic components which satisfy speech intentsii the speaking. For example:

(70) «Honoring: Qui l’aurait dit? Une petite Sainte-N’y-Touche, qui faisait la pudeur, qui faisait l’enfant» (M. Pagnol. «Marius», p. 206).

In Russian there is a similar speech cliche, less refined, but exact: «Whose cow would low.». Presuppozitsija helps to understand the reason so agonalnoj (aggressive) speech strategy of mother. The matter is that its eighteen-year daughter find alone with the man. The irreparable damage is caused to its kind reputation. However the girl tries to be justified from a position «innocent the child, touchy persons, moral virtue», than causes such rough reaction of mother.

This example once again shows position that ekspressivnopragmaticheskie markers and operators of this or that speech strategy are combined and strengthen each other. After rhetorical “qui” it is used

konditsional, the ironical use of reminiscential names (petite Sainte - N’y-Touche) etc.

T.A.Repin, M.K.Sabaneeva, etc. mark: «it is necessary to pay attention that the structure of questions with polemic konditsionalom differs set of specific fig. the Question represents a private question in which the interrogative word induces the addressee of speech to a concrete substantiation of the information concluded in the previous statement. The form konditsionala specifies that from the point of view of the interlocutor speaking the information mismatches the validity. Thus, expression of a dialogical modality is served here by a complex of language means: an interrogative word and sootveetstvujushchaja the sentence structure inherent given kommu - nikativnomu to type, the form konditsionala, the lexical structure of the offer repeating or paraphrasing the previous statement.

Especially important role is played by interrogative words. They designate the basis on which base the speaking denies the interlocutor in the compressed kind, revealing an inconsistency presuppozitsii its statements »[Repin 1992, 80 - is allocated by us - Amp-hr.].

Interrogativy with interrogative "qui" are widely used in dialogue for expression of "negation", "disagreement", "refusal", and it becomes, on - visible to concentrate attention perceiving on negative reaction speaking, having shaded thus an own position, a position of the subject, so also the subject. For example:

(71) «Sorbier: Qui t’a parle de mourir? = (on n’a pas parle de mourir; personne n’en a parle). On cause sur ce qu’ils vont nous faire avant... Il faut bien qu'on s’y prepare» (J-P. Sartre. «La P. respectueuse suivi de morts sans sepulture», p. 110);

(72) «Gerard: Que fais-tu ici, toi?

Ade: Gerard!

Gerard: Qui t’a permis de venir ici? »(A. Salacrou.« Histoire de rire », p.


In investigated interrogative structures the pronoun "qui" from the interrogative is transformed in generalised with an uncertainty shade. Semantics of this pronoun is wider than value definitely - personal pronouns: “je”, "tu", eta. Therefore it as though absorbs, incorporates the real figure. Replacement of the name of the concrete subject by a pronoun “qui” in the specified function leads to inconcrete, "dim" expression of the semantic subject.

The resulted examples of the use of questions in secondary function confirm certain law: in a role of predicates

Analyzed interrogativov verbs of saying and thinking verbs act, as a rule: verba dicendi, verba putandi. Semantics of verbs “songer”, “penser”, “demander”, “dire”, etc. It is indirectly connected with the subject to whom roles speaking (enuntsiatora) and reflexing as “qui”, whatever function carried out in interrogative designs are peculiar, always specifies in the animated person. For example:

(73) «Cleonte: Non, vois-tu, tous tes discours pour la detendre ne serviront a


Covielle: Qui songe a cela? (J-B. Moliere. «Le Bourgeois gentilhomme», p. 9);

(74) «Maman se prit la tete a deux mains: C’est a devenir folle. Qui parle de jeter I’argent dans I’eau? Qui jette I’argent? (G. Duhamel.« Vue de la Terre promise », p. 269).

Thus, the statement or the negation expressed interrogativom with “qui”, is not equivalent to their expression in the narrative offer.

As shows the semantic analysis, judgement of the subject of the speech, expressed in similar sorts questions, often has no categorical character. Not casually, apparently, the predicate of analyzed designs is often used in “the hypothetical future” as a result of the semantic

Coordination: sema "dubitativnosti", a part of the meant

Pronouns “qui”, it is easily combined with semoj the same nature as a part of meant “the hypothetical future”. The inconcrete, generalised subject is combined with the action which performance has presumable character. For example:

(75) «Le Monsieur: Qui aurait pense que le premier train offrirait un spectacle aussi tragique? (A. Adamov.« Le printemps », p. 4);

(76) «Qui ne rendrait hommage a sa conduite charitable, a son abnegation? Qui douterait de sa vertu, de son desinteressement?» (P. Moustiers. «La paroi», p. 30).

“Oui” in interrogative, specifying in the generalised person of the figure, easily comes into contact to modal verbs which mark potentially possible actions of the subject. For example:

(77) «Qui auraitpu prevoir une defaillance pareille? (P. Moustiers.« La paroi »,

p. 90);

(78) «Qui aurait pu supposer que le jeune homme, entendant du bruit pendant la nuit, etait descendu dans la cuisine, et la avait ete attaque par le ou les mysterieux visiteurs» (G. Simenon. «La pipe de Maigret», p. 131).

The complex of operators “the reduced semantic subject + a modal verb (“ pouvoir ”) +“ futur hypothetique ”+ an infinitive antropomorfnyh verbs” is used by the subject of speech for the self-justification, for "creation" such «the possible world» where described real events are impossible, from its point of view. Having connected itself with a certain set of other subjects (generalising function), the pronoun “qui” carries out kataforicheskuju function, entering a real proposition as "impossible" in mental space of the speaking subject. The pronoun “qui” with a verb “savoir” in an interrogative design often turns to speeches in a colloquial phraseological unit, a remark-reaction of modal type, in which semantic subject practically desemantiziruetsja. For example:

(79) «Domitia: Vous ne m’apprendriez rien.

Vibius: J’ai su avant vous qu’on ne peut pas caresser un chien a deux


Domitia: Qui sait? »(J. Giono.«Domitien», p. 13);

(80) «Cesar: Toi? Il est fou, mais pas au point d’etre jaloux d'un homme de ton age.

«Panisse: Qui sait?» (M. Pagnol. «Marius», p. 104).

Jet interrogative remark “Qui sait?” Expresses doubt speaking concerning told and is kontrargumentativnoj.

Thus, the analysed actual material confirms thought that the pronoun “qui” in interrogative in secondary function accepts generalised, with semoj uncertainty, value. Obobshchenno-uncertain or obobshchenno-defined “qui” supersedes a personal pronoun specifying in the certain figure, from a dialogical design. The semantic subject is defined by means of a context, a speech situation, presuppozitsii.

<< | >>

More on topic 3.2.1. A reduction of the subject a pronoun “qui” in the questions which are carrying out secondary function:

  1. 3.1.3. A reduction of the semantic subject a pronoun“qui”
  2. Expression of the subject by a pronoun “qui” in interrogativah
  3. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun “on"
  4. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun “quelqu’un"
  5. 4.1.5. Implitsitnost the semantic subject in the designs formed by verbs-konversivami of type “recevoir”
  6. “New I”.
  7. 2. The basic literature at the rate “economy History”
  8. § 2.1. Institute “agency” in Scotland: concept, sphere of action of agents and their power
  9. § 3 Problem of the legal maintenance of concept “the real union” on an example of the Kingdom Polish.
  10. §2. Problems of realisation of a principle “ant dedere ant judicare” concerning certificates of illegal intervention
  11. 3.1.2. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun "yes"
  12. 2.1.3. About programs for MD modelling: programs LAMMPS and “CSEG”
  13. Use of conceptual positions of theories “nesover - shennoj” and a "monopolistically" competitiveness in a modern economic science and economic practice
  14. the concept Contents “population social protection” and necessity of social protection for modern market economy
  15. 2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject
  16. the Reasons of a reduction of the semantic subject
  17. 3.3. A reduction of the subject and an offer and text actual division
  18. the Reduction of the subject in semantic structure of a phraseological unit
  19. 3.2. A reduction of the subject in interrogative designs of the French language
  20. 2.2. A reduction of the semantic subject as display of functional dynamics in language