2.1. A category of the semantico-syntactical subject

In grammatical tradition the term "subject" is used for a designation of the sentence part corresponding to a subject of thought (judgement). The modern linguistic theory distinguishes 5 (five) types of the subject:

- The grammatical subject (or a subject), concerning a syntactic sentence structure (the expression plan);

- The semantic subject concerning the maintenance of the offer (an agent opposed patsiensu - undergoing influence);

- The communicative subject (the message theme, given, topik);

- The psychological subject (initial representation);

- The logic subject (the part of the offer corresponding to the subject of judgement) (compare [Arutyunov 1990, 498]).

The partition of grammatical concept "subject" is caused by requirement of the analysis of the offer at various linguistic levels [Benvenist 1974] and asymmetry of the form arising in language and values (function) [Arutyunov 1979; the Hook 1980; Kartsevsky 1965; Kolshansky 1979].

G.A.Zolotov writes, in particular: Really, enter in

The contradiction two basic signs of a subject: the morphological sign orders it the Nominative case form, and structurally-semantic — a role of the subject, the carrier of a predicative sign. Meanwhile variety of offers represent us of the sign carrier in other forms of oblique cases, compare, for example:

It does not work — to It is not worked;

It longs — to It sadly;

Money is-money is not present;

Water arrives — Waters arrives;

He raves — At it delirium;

It in a faint — With it a faint etc.

There are no other reasons, except purely morphological restriction, to consider the underlined forms of a name in the right column as additions or other distributors of a predicative basis. All of them serve in the structurally-semantic relation as carrier expression preditsiruemogo a sign [Zolotov 1982, 103].

Because a subject and the semantic subject represent raznourovnevye concepts and their combination in the offer takes place far not always, the semantic subject cannot be found only at a support on grammatical, formal indicators of sentence parts. The concept "semantic" specifies that there is a semantic sign of "substance" which in an "ontologic" image of a fragment of the validity is allocated by subjective function.

Proceeding from the spent analysis of a theoretical and practical language and speech material, we accept following operational definition: the SEMANTIC SUBJECT is, first of all, the active, reasonable (conceiving) substance, kauzirujushchaja the reason of a certain action (relation) and carrying out it in real (or possible) the world: a being, or an artefact, or, as a rule,

INDIVIDUAL, or it "sublimat", ontologically or metaphorically replacing a position of the subject, or certain "point of view", or as circle of the subject, vosstanovimaja from a context or a situation.

However depending on character of a described reality protagonist situations can carry out in the offer (proposition) different semantic functions. As is known, U.L.Chejf has allocated various actantial roles at deep level of the offer: an agent, benefitsianta, patsiensa, eksperientsera etc. [CHejf 2003].

The semantic subject when it acts in an agent role [Lagane 1969 becomes the central element kategorialnogo fields "Subject"; Coquet 1984]. However, considering transformatsionnuju flexibility of language (not speaking about the different system organisation of languages of the world), the subject can take various actantial positions (to a role on U.Chejfu) and to be exposed to transformations not only in respect of the maintenance (at deep level), but also in respect of expression.

In our opinion, it is necessary to understand as is functional-semantic transformations of the subject in different degree formal nevyrazhennost lexical and grammatical categories of a name of the subject (a noun, a pronoun) which reviewer is the real figure, intentsionalnyj (worrying) or expressing feelings (volitivnyj) and speaking (informing, dialogizirujushchy) an individual.

The reduction as the basic revealed transformation of the subject tends to curling in respect of expression and sinkretizmu in respect of the statement maintenance (the offer, the text, etc.) information concerning the semantic subject.

In the course of work we have subjected to the analysis fragments of semantics representing a certain ontologic action or process in which the subject, for whatever reasons, first of all the communicative plan, does not find the high-grade verbal expression or is completely verbally eliminated from the simple, separately taken offer or from a part of the difficult French offer, semanticheski equivalent to the simple.

It is necessary to notice especially, that, despite the diversified forms of elimination of the semantic subject, in offers which describe real actions of the real figure, the semantic subject will be present on one of levels of deep or superficial structure of language-speech (a position of the subject, "point of view", etc.).

Here the principle dopolnitelnosti lexical and grammatical levels of production of sense about which many articles and the books reflecting various concepts are written, differing by approaches and terminology [Admoni 1988 is shown; Aleksandrova 1987; Alisova 1971; Arutyunov 1979; Vinogradov 1986; Zolotov 1982; Ivin 1986а; Coquet 1984; Dubois 1968; Gross 1978, etc.].

In language as marks N.D.Arutyunov, the thought cannot be expressed differently, as in the form of the offer [Arutyunov 1976, 16]. Such approach results still from aristotelevskoj language and thinking pictures when the logic practically merged with grammar [Aristotle 1975; Arno 1991, 147-148; Lomov 1994, 43].

The certificate of thinking expressed by the offer, always dvuchlenen. In offers analyzed by us and to a thought predicate (judgements in a sentence structure) correspond to the subject two it organizujushchih the centre, or two main sentence parts, the designating carrier of a predicative sign (the semantic subject) and a produced sign (action of the subject), directed or not on object [Lomov 2004].

dvuchlennost, dvusostavnost offers, thus, — its nuclear syntactic sign since the offer represents the thinking certificate. This sign is the general for all offers: The sentence structure is formed by interaction of two plans, in one of which receives reflexion communication of the offer with the objective world, in other — its communication with thinking process. Being the main means of formation, expression and the thought message, the offer expresses the message on the validity [Vinogradov 1986]. The certificate of thinking expressed by the offer, always dvuchlenen: about something something is informed, to some subject a certain predicative sign is attributed. And to a thought-judgement predicate in a sentence structure two it correspond to the subject, as a rule, organizujushchih the centre, or two the main things of a member, the designating carrier of a predicative sign and preditsiruemyj a sign. dvuchlennost, dvusostavnost offers, thus, — its necessary sign so far as as the offer serves as expression of the certificate of thinking. This sign is the general for all offers. The predicativity characterising each offer, also means the predicative relation between structural support of thought-offer — the subject and a predicate, expressed in language categories of time, a modality and the person.

As we study not logic structure of thought-judgement, and language structure of thought-offer, for us concrete language forms and values of subjects and predicates in different models of the offer are especially important. Language forms and values of subjects and the predicates, the different typical maintenance and ways of its registration cause an offer accessory to different structural types RS. In these distinctions the plan of communication of the offer with vnejazykovym the world also is shown. Displaying kategorialnye the phenomena of the objective validity, their communication and the relation, language for imenovanija those or others a category and communications has certain nominative and constructive means [Zolotov 2001, 24-25].

However, following dominating in linguistics verbotsentricheskoj concepts [Tener 1988], the semantic sentence structure is defined first of all by verbal value. Semantics of verbs speaks us about implitsitnoj communications with the subject, its presumptions, whatever to it the role in U.L.Chejfa's concept was taken away. The semantic subject is put initially in pawn in semantics of similar type of verbs [Dubois 1968]. These verbs are distinguished by a projection (valency) to the subject, internal requirement for it.

The nominative (referential) aspect reflects objective correlation of the statement to a described situation [Alisova 1971, 122]. There is a sense "subjective", arising in communications, and "objective", laying in the nature of designated things [Kolshansky 1975].

As is known, the subject and a predicate carry out essentially various functions in the offer: the name in a subject position acts in the denotirujushchej functions. The predicate realises the signifikativnoe the maintenance [Dubois 1973].

Thus, in the offer denotat and signifikat (predicate) functions nazyvanija and designations have (name). Usually, though and not always, value of the subject "is transparent", through it distinctly appears through denotat [Arutyunov 1976, 10], it is supposed also, that function referentsii and individualization function are realised in a subject simultaneously. Though it is supposed, apparently, that in the course of offer generation these functions can separately be carried out and precede one another [Stepans 1979, 336].

Hence, in offers with transformation of a reduction function of a nomination of the subject is shown in the special form or practically is not realised. It is caused by that mental display of event by the offer assumes its global allocation by means of the name (nomination) or an event partition on a predicate, the semantic subject and other arguments (discussion by this position see [Zolotov 2001]).

G.A.Zolotov writes: the Validity not only finds

The mediated display in language forms, it chlenitsja also will be organised in consciousness speaking accordingly to its linguistic vision by that or other national-language collective.

The Semantico-syntactical sentence structure, interfacing it is predicative word forms with value of the figure and its action, the subject of a condition and its condition, a subject and its sign (qualitative or quantitative), etc. are realised by the plan of communication of the offer with the validity and simultaneously concretises the plan of communication with thinking, expressing not in general the subject and a thought predicate, and its is substantial-formal versions [Zolotov 2001, 25].

For example, language impersonal predicates in offers II fait du vent; il pleut only name natural events, not dismembering them [Stepans 1988].

However they are quite synonymous to offers La neige tombe; Le vent souffle since the same events (reviewers), in effect, name, and the verbal predicate in the resulted offers does not add a new significant element to the subject maintenance, marking only grammatical time of event or a process phase. Only that offer mentally chlenitsja on semanticheski significant components which displays a situation consisting in a reality from corresponding elements, allocated with consciousness of the person and leksicheski presented to language.

For example, here is how the situation in which to the uncertain subject the certain train of actions is attributed is described:

(1) Quelqu’un etait enferme la-haut, dans une chambre, c’etait clair. Ce quelqu’un ne devait pas etre content d’etre claustre de la sorte, puisque, avant le diner, Malik avait ete oblige de monter pour le morigener.

Ce to the aunt quelqu’un avait essaye de profiter du repas qui reunissait toute la famille dans la salle a manger pour s’enfuir. Il avait saute dans la terre molle... (G. Simenon. Maigret se fache, p. 36-37 ).

In this example the sequence of offers with the reduced nomination of the subject quite referentna also is not limited in the description of sequence of actions. The reduced subject quelqu ’ un, despite washed away referentsiju, incurs high-grade functions of a subject and leksikaliziruetsja, that the nomination personal ‘ il ’ proves anaforicheskaja.

So, we will spend conceptual audit:

1. There are all bases to consider, that the text as communicative unit is formed in a brain speaking on the basis of propositions as they are imagined by the modern logic [Ivin 1986а; Katsnelson 1974, 107;

Problems 1989]. It is considered to be the Proposition semantic invariant, the general for all members of modal and communicative paradigms of offers and designs derivative of the offer (nominalizatsija). The proposition concept answers the old tendency to an offer partition (or statements) an objective semantic constant (diktum in the logician sholastov and at S.Balli, representation or an image at R.Descartes, intensional in the modern logic), capable to receive true value and the subjective variable expressing the relation of value of the offer to

The validity (modality): an estimation of reliability of the informed

Speaking, a communicative problem of the statement and emotivnoe the relation speaking to informed [Arutyunov 1990, 401].

2. Korreljatom the propositions, corresponding listed above

To values, the concept propozitsionalnogo relations or installations [Shatunovsky 1988, 1989] is. Thus, in a situation described

The statement, two parties distinguish: a subject situation (event) and speech (the relation speaking to event and the relation between them). To two aspects of a situation there correspond two aspects of the offer — diktum (a modality de re) and modus (a modality de dicto) [Balli 1955; 2001]. C subjective variable components (modus) the stable semantic kernel (diktum) corresponds, reflecting a process situation, therefore it is quite logical, that the sense of a category “action of the semantic subject” consists of following components: aktsionalnogo the subject (actant) — its actions — object of influence. To this semantic kernel the term "proposition" which, thus, corresponds to nominative or actually semantic aspect of the offer [Kasevich 1985] also is applied.

3. Terms which are a part of a proposition (the subject and the object), are capable to referentsii, a predicate gets modal time characteristics. Hence, the proposition corresponds to approximately semantic maintenance of the elementary offer, one-predicative, not complicated by attributes and adverbial words [Katsnelson 1974, 108].

4. Carrying out the communicative certificate, speaking expresses the propositive maintenance “action of the subject”, directed mainly on object. The proposition is not the certificate, but process of expression of a proposition is a part of performance of the certain communicative certificate. As that proposition is not present at a superficial sentence structure (statement). She finds out herself in sequence of signs on language structure. The proposition is exposed to some semantic operation, namely: the predicate with the filled valencies forms a proposition, actants take places peculiar to them [In the same place: 109].

Having spent audit of bases which demand specification of our position in view of the numerous points of view and available polisemii terms, we will continue a substantiation of the sintaksiko-semantic status of the subject of the offer-statement from a position modern kognitivnoj the linguistics based on logic tradition of many generations of scientists (see [Kubrjakova 1994; Lomov 1994]).

Discrete elements of a language system at their transformation to the offer form a linear number, following one behind another, like chain links. The subject and arguments of a predicate also cannot appear in speech simultaneously as they are given in a proposition displaying a reality. The propositive maintenance of the statement is developed on the basis of this dichotomy and can be understood, hence, as realisation of functional installation speaking concerning a known subject of communications (a theme-rheme the relation).

The propositive maintenance is directly connected by that the speaking thinks of occurring event, it transfers those ideas, concepts, representations, i.e. knowledge concerning which the speech certificate is made

[Jokojama 2005]. From the point of view kognitivnoj linguistics, after O.Jokojama, it is possible tipologizirovat knowledge which can make communications subject. First of all it is a presumption of existence of the subject, according to P.Rikera, La puissance affirmative d’exister (Force of conviction in existence) [Riker 1995]. In O.Jokojama's terms is an existential knowledge. The speaking subject, being out of modalnootsenochnoj proposition frameworks, as though confirms: J'affirme que je suis Je [Coquet 1984, 15] (see the Scheme 3). To the subject propozitsionalnogo relations

(intentsionalnomu to the subject) corresponds predikatsionnoe knowledge, i.e. representations that a certain existential subject exists in its certain conditions (characteristics of action, transformations etc.). Interface of two knowledge occurs in the subject-protagoniste and forms propozitsionalnoe knowledge: And is In , that makes a basis of deep syntactic structure (i.e. propositions) statements. However at this level the blank positions , designated in superficial structure, as a rule, uncertain terms prevail: qn fait qch; 5a arrive que, etc. Further the specifying knowledge transforms ‘ qn ’ in Jean; ‘ fait ’ in ‘ ecrif; ‘ qch ’ in ‘ une dictee ’. However connection of these terms in the offer (statement) Jean ecrit une dictee is possible only at presence referentsialnogo knowledge, i.e. conformity of the validity to described event. The message on this event demands knowledge of a code, i.e. leksikogrammaticheskoj language system. It is necessary to tell that functional efficiency of process of expression propozitsionalnogo maintenances can be reached in the event that the speaking will consider not only the representations about a subject, but also can relevantly transfer to their interlocutor for what the knowledge diskursivnoj is necessary for a situation [Jokojama 2005, 30].

As a rule, relevance of the statement consists that the speaking tries to reflect the representations about kognitivnoj to the program in consciousness of the listening. The propositive maintenance, being is based on intentsii speaking, opens how speaking ‘ sees ’ representation listening, and what its own representations about a subject. Thus if kognitivnye programs of interlocutors do not coincide (a failure in kognitivnom the speaking O.Jokojama's expectation names "impozitsiej" [In the same place]), occurs kognitivnyj the conflict and, as consequence, — communicative failure [Gjurdzhjan 2009; Jokojama 1998; Paducheva 1997; popova 2006; Festinger 1999]).

Displaying of a many-placed proposition on a linear sound number proceeds as process "linearizatsii" (U.Chejfa's term), i.e. transformations simultannyh elements in them ranzhirovannuju in time sequence [Potapov 2003; 2006; Katsnelson 1974, 112]. “One of arguments of a many-placed proposition should precede thus to all to the rests. Linearizatsija proposition elements is the necessary precondition of transformation of argument in a subject. The basic, equivalent to a predicate the argument resists to all other arguments. It as though predominates over them and, as a rule, precedes them” [Katsnelson 1974, 113].

To the full the typology of the semantico-syntactical subject of the offer is executed on a material Russian [Zolotov 2001, 133-155], Italian and Russian of languages in the comparative plan [Rylov 2006].

However a subject — a category not conceivable, not propozitsionalnaja, and communicative propositions appearing as a result of transformation to the offer. There is a selection and structurization of words in the offer, there is a word order peculiar to this or that language [Kinen 1982, 148].

In the French language the word order, as is known, is one of the basic means of expression of certain syntactic functions. The word order is rather strongly stabilised and in many respects grammatikalizirovan so, that almost does not allow depending on a context or a situation to change vzaimopolozhenie a subject and a predicate in narrative offers. J.A.Rylov marks: In English and French languages where the pronominal subject does not fall, there is no also a subject inversion — in that kind in what it exists in Italian and Russian languages. Really, the special constructions, capable to provide subject inversion in English and French languages, are used with the limited quantity of verbs and is exclusive at an uncertain subject: There have arrived three girls. Il est arrive trois filles. There has arrived John. *Il est arrive Jean... [Rylov 2006, 44 - it is allocated by us CH].

The subject in the French language is defined to following signs: a name without a pretext; a preposition in relation to the interfaced verb (except interrogatively-exclamatory and some other designs); zameshchaemost subject pronouns il, elle, ce, relative qui, interrogative qui est-ce qui?; qu'est-ce qui? [The Hook 1986, 72-73]. The word answering to these formal signs is capable to take of a subject position.

Subject in the French language — an obligatory component of the verbal offer having two-member structure. Even in case of communicative redundancy of the semantic subject or when the offer describes subjectless event, the subject position will be occupied by a formal subject "il", “? a”, “on” [Baarslag 1964].

The description the action offer which character specifies in a reasonable substance, its making, demands, that at syntactic level the subject or addition position should be occupied by the concrete animated noun or a definite-personal pronoun as the executor of action (actant).

However this law is often enough broken: the real figure or "is shaded" by pronouns "on", “? a”, etc., or as a subject names with distinct from characteristic semantics for the real figure are found out; korreljativno the expressed figure thus at syntactic level is not present (II est arrive un train - the train) Has come.

At observance of all existing formal requirements (a direct word order) in a subject position, basically, there can be any part of speech adequate to value of a proposition ‘ the figure — action ’. Constants (with rare exception) have presence in the predicate offer.

Thus, even an actant meaning the real figure in a position of a subject, despite the semantico-syntactical relevance as well as other subjects, can be sintaksicheski a changeable element.

As is known, the concept "actant" has been entered into modern linguistics by L.Tenerom who considered it as an element of syntactic structure of the verbal knot consisting from: 1) a verb expressing action or process; 2) actants — persons or subjects, which take part in this action (it always nouns or their equivalents), designating the subject and object, the purpose, means, result; 3) sirkonstantov, specifying in time and spatial co-ordinates of course of process, on its time characteristics [Tener 1988; Arrive 1969; Tesniere 1959, 102]. The concept of a verbal complex accepted at L.Tenera

Corresponds to logic representation of a proposition which, however, does not include the variables connected with it. L.Tener considers actantially - predicate structure as the small play where action is a predicate, and actors — actants. The main actor — the semantic subject in some fragments of the play - offers for some reasons can be eliminated. The predicate usually numbering of some arguments, is that core which allows each sentence part to act in a subject role. At the same time, each predicate is functionally focused on a subject. The subject choice sets semantikogrammaticheskuju the prospect defining in what to measure of possibility of syntactic expansion of other offer. In this case speaking, apparently, is more free in a choice subject, than any other sentence part [Silnitsky 1981, 43].

The first place of a subject is a priori determined, irrespective of morphological and lexical characteristics of other sentence parts. Thus, the subject represents an offer starting point. The position of the subject-actant can remain unoccupied in the offer, however it is present at a semantic sentence structure at deep level. In a word, as a statement subject can act under known conditions not only a name designating the semantic subject, but also words of other semantics which are connected by semantic relations with concept “action of the subject”. Actantially - predicate structures are considered by us as structure semantic, including semantic actants (variables) and a semantic predicate (constant) [the Hook 1969; 2000].

<< | >>
A source: ALEXANDER MIHAJLOVICH CHERVONYJ. STRUCTURE And FUNCTIONAL DYNAMICS of the CATEGORY the LANGUAGE SUBJECT (ON the MATERIAL of the FRENCH LANGUAGE). 2014
Otvety.Online. :

More on topic 2.1. A category of the semantico-syntactical subject:

  1. 1.1. A category of the subject in antropotsentricheskoj to a paradigm
  2. 5.3. Phraseological means of expression of a category the language subject: the person and it simuljakry
  3. 1.1. Indeksalnye and nominative fields of a category of the subject
  4. the CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL PRECONDITIONS of RESEARCH of the LANGUAGE CATEGORY of the SUBJECT
  5. 1.2. The Semiotiko-functional method of research of a language category of the subject
  6. ALEXANDER MIHAJLOVICH CHERVONYJ. STRUCTURE And FUNCTIONAL DYNAMICS of the CATEGORY the LANGUAGE SUBJECT (ON the MATERIAL of the FRENCH LANGUAGE), 2014
  7. IT IS SUBJECT - THE OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE OWNERSHIP IN THE SUBJECT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF KHABAROVSK TERRITORY).
  8. RE-STRUCTURING IT IS SUBJECT - OBJECTIVE STRUCTURE OF MANAGEMENT gosobstvennnostyo AND THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
  9. 2. A subject of the contract building podrjada as its qualifying sign and features of a legal element of a subject of the contract
  10. corporation as the subject of law. The European company as the subject of law
  11. Subject factors of perception of the political leader Influence of the subject factor on process of political perception
  12. 3. A category of savings of property
  13. 2.3. A role of the predicative centre in definition funktsionalnosemanticheskogo fields of the subject
  14. 1. The author as smysloobrazujushchaja stileobrazujushchaja a media text category
  15. 2.3. Paradox as a style category
  16. Section I. Evokativnost as rechejazykovaja a category
  17. an intensity Category in modern linguistics
  18. 2. The tax as a science category about the state
  19. 3. Seisin in fact as a civil-law category