1.1. A category of the subject in antropotsentricheskoj to a paradigm

The subject as a scientific category and as the nuclear component antropotsentricheskogo the approach in system of the humanities is an object of research in philosophy, psychology, linguistics etc. Speaking about a science place about language, K.Bjuler against which doctrine we will lean time and again, writes: «the Prophet at the left, the prophet on the right, the child of this world — in the middle. The language theory should represent this child, that is simply top of empirical work jazykovedov. If the philosophy is a prophet on the right from which the theory of language every time when it is threatened with danger certain epistemologizma, that is artificial identification from one of possible basic installations of the theory of knowledge she should demand from the prophet at the left the same respect of the independence defends. The psychology is a prophet at the left» [Bjuler 2000, 3-4].

Let's begin with «the prophet on the right». The subject (from an armour. subjectum - laying in the basis) - one of the main categories of the philosophy, designating the person operating, learning, conceiving in derivation from its concrete individual characteristics. The subject has a correlative category "object" (from an armour. оЬ|есШт - a subject), designating a reality fragment - material or ideal, - on which activity of the subject is directed. Subject-objective vision of informative activity was to the full generated only in HUP-HUSH centuries. The historicism of development of a problem of subject-objective relations was showed that the treatment of the maintenance of these categories and the nature of their interaction varied. So, for a materialistic direction the understanding of the relation "subektobekt" as interactions of two natural systems is characteristic. It first of all the causal concept of knowledge when the knowledge is understood as result, a consequence of influence of object on the subject, physical influence of object on the sense organs, leaving "traces"-prints. Activity only on the party of object and an is passive-contemplate position of the subject in this case admits.

In the tideway of the same tradition - understanding of the relation "subject-object" as interactions of material systems - the concept «knowledge lays there is a reflexion» which in it dialektiko a-materialistic variant essentially deepens understanding of activity of the subject. The knowledge as a whole here is considered in unity of reflexion in detail-practical activities and communications, and activity of the subject appears caused not so much its biological, how many sotsiokulturnoj as the nature.

Essentially other approach in understanding of subject-objective relations and the nature of the subject is presented in concepts where the knowledge is interpreted as defined by structure of the consciousness. Reveal as though two "layers" of the subject: the individual empirical subject and

transtsendentalnyj, thus recognise that experience structure, its specifications and criteria root in features transtsendentalnogo the subject. Last is understood as independent of the empirical corporal individual and community of others "I", as nadyndividualnaja the structure providing valid objective knowledge. E.Gusserl wrote: « All concerning the world, all existential life is for me, is significant for me, thanks to that I learn it in experience, I perceive, I recollect it, I judge or as-or I think of it, I estimate it, I wish, etc. All it, as is known, Descartes names cogito. The world in general is for me not that other, as realised in such cogito and the significant world for me. And the bytijnuju the importance it receives all universal and special sense exclusively from such cogitationes. In them all my life in the world, including my life, as scientific-researcher and theorist proceeds. I cannot live, think and operate in any other world, I can not learn in experience, estimate such world which is not meaningful and zna - chimosti in me and from me »[Gusserl 2000, 347-348].

One of significant consequences of this concept - idea of high spiritual activity of the subject, its fundamental role in the course of knowledge. According to philosophers, «the knowledge theory requires such category of the subject when it is understood in the integrity containing not only kognitivnye, logiko-gnoseological, but also the existential, cultural-historical and social qualities participating in knowledge. Differently, the empirical person completely replaced« partial »the gnoseological subject in the traditional theory of knowledge, should be returned in the modern doctrine about the knowledge, combining abstractly-transtsendentalnye and existentially - anthropological components» [Philosophical concepts - el. A resource]. In various encyclopaedias "subject" always protivopolagaetsja to "object" as the active self-conscious beginning of a spiritual life which opposes itself to an external world and own conditions, considering them as object [Brockhaus 2006]; Encyclopaedic definition leads also to the animated judgement of this category: «the carrier in detail -

Practical activities and knowledge (the individual or social group), a source of the activity directed on object »[Prokhorov 2000].

In later philosophical researches there is a category "intersubektivnosti" as immanent dialogizma persons: «the Person — an ethical phenomenon. It represents the maintenance, the centre and unity of certificates, intentsionalno directed on others persons. Just as each subject posesses object, and to each person belongs, grammatical speaking,« the second person »:« I "belong" to everyone you "." We understand As the person the human individual as it — as operating, allocated with will and aspirations as the representative of the thoughts, sights, judgements as the being with claims and the rights, moods and estimations appears connected to other same human individuals and learns about their manner of the reference, statements, an ox and aspirations, meets their thoughts, sights, judgements and takes of any position in relation to their claims, moods and values »(N. G arman) [FES, 244].

In psychology the subject — «the individual (or social group), realising the informative or in detail-converting activity directed on a concrete subject» [Kondakov 2007, 565].

A.N.Leontev in work «Methodological writing-books» wrote: «the Psychology has the subject activity of the subject in relation to the validity, oposredstvovannuju display of this validity» (With. 163) - TSit. On [Leontev 2001, 151-152]. Display is understood as the special condition of the subject named experience. Forms of experiences are chuvstvovanie, the sensation, thought. «The psychology studies,

Hence, how the validity of the subject becomes it

Experience and as its experiences become valid. The psychological validity is unity of activity and experience (In the same place) ». - TSit. On [Leontev 2001, 152]. Thus, psychologists its intellectual activity as acquisition and application of knowledge, formation of intelligence and the person which« is considered as created by public relations which the subject enters within the limits of the activity interests kognitivnoe space and kognitivnyj the mechanism of the person [Zalevsky 2000, 2005]. Thus the separate acts of the subject presented first of all by the motives, enter among themselves hierarchy of relations, forming so-called hierarchy of motives »[Leontev 1975].

However kognitivnaja the psychology also comes to idea dual (I/you) of the subject, including in the course of its formation in ontogeneze: «Development kontsepta I as subject of knowledge (the subject differs from formation of representations about I as object of knowledge (objective I or Mine) which appears in the middle of 2nd year (a life of the child - A.CH.) . The touch to itself at mirror reflexion, instead of to a mirror image becomes criterion of distinction. Subject I originate in pertseptivnyh and motor achievements, I include self-control, differentiation — Others and management of the behaviour. Babies feel the subject experience long before self-knowledge. The second initial major problem in JA-concept development is the establishment of equivalence I — Another. This type of representations about itself can be designated as JA-interpersonalnoe. JA-interpersonalnoe appears also at the smallest babies and it is specified by species-specific signals about mutual relations: the JA-individual who participates in human exchanges. This praformu JA-interpersonalnogo does not include cultural installations and thin aspects interpersonalnyh relations. Such type of representations also develops directly. In a human life people often co-operate directly, face to face, the means inherent in a human kind. These interactions meet at different levels of human intimacy, including corporal contacts or without them. A characteristic handshaking includes an exchange of sights, gestures or reciprocal vocalisations. All these kinds of interaction are perceived directly and do not demand the special realised interpretation »[Sergienko 2008, 350].

Developing kognitivnaja the paradigm represents the subject kognitivnoj to activity as a substance deprived of obligatory attribute in the form of the central mental body (the central nervous system, etc.). "Biology" provides kognitivnye processes of base level and then any live organism can be included in a conceptual range of a category «kognitivnyj the subject, the subject of knowledge/knowledge». From a position evolutionary epistemologii and biosemiotics [Maturana 1995; Kravchenko 2008] knowledge receives the expanded treatment as adaptation H to the environment; "subject" collects knowledge of the environment (biosystem) and thus acts as the abstract subject of system receiving from interaction with Wednesday the information which exchanges, not being thus as a being animated. The subject of knowledge/knowledge, receiving so expanded interpretation, can include both the subject of consciousness, and any biological organism [Verhoturova - el. res.] . In kognitivnom linguistics (and in literary criticism) the subject is represented as the certain "point of view", sometimes financially not expressed "position" corresponding to reflexing consciousness of the interpreter, receiving the information.

Kognitivnaja the science which has left psychology of knowledge, by all means addresses to language, considering it «the child of this world» as a source giving «for considering data about value of the forms. Here also knowledge and value research» [Kubrjakova 1994, 45] is closed.

A.V.Kravchenko writes: «Without distinction between language value and kognitivnym the maintenance the adequate decision of semantic questions is impossible» [for Kravchenko 2004, 13]. Therefore «though many jazykovedy by the tradition which are going back to works of B.Russell, K.Bjulera, etc., connect till now a problem subjective in language with the factor speaking which appropriates language during the moment — and for a moment — speeches (see, e.g., Stepans

1985), the problem of the subject as operating and regulating beginning in functioning of language system cannot be shown exclusively to a figure of the speaking. As show the numerous facts..., in language system it is fixed it 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 the point of view — "system of the anthropogenous positions acting differently (that is actual it is virtual) in language, speech, speech activity and poetics" [...], thus the term "point of view" is read as "site" — a place in space from which the object of perception »[Kravchenko 2004 sees, 21-22

It is allocated by us CH].

Kognitivnaja the paradigm understands under EGO not speaking, and the human individual learning the world. Entering into it, and the linguistics, becoming kognitivnoj, puts in the forefront «antropotsentrichesky a method» [Stepans 2001] which assumes use of such terms as: "egocentric" and "homocentric", etc. (see, e.g., [Arutyunov 1988]).

At the heart of linguistic kognitivistiki the thesis about kognitivnom the device of the subject formed on the basis of various modules, delivering to the individual pertseptivnye sensations, or perceptions (e.g., «a computer metaphor» J lays. Fodora) [Fodor 1986]. «Informative activity of the primary level which substantial party makes kategorizatsija language means of phenomenological knowledge, i.e. The knowledge taken as a result of direct sensual experience, the starting point has directly a figure of the human individual learning the real world. By linguists for a long time it is recognised, that the spatial essence defined as a human body, Kravchenko 2004, 22 serves as a fertile soil for metaphorical kategorizatsii experience» [; see tzh. Marylin 2006].

Thus, for the subject are characteristic kategorialno the forming lines perceived from positions of different sciences as supplementing each other. We will try to generalise and designate these lines:

1. The ontologic subject is learning, is information the active essence operating in the certain environment, co-operating with it both in respect of information interchange, and in respect of influence and transformation of environment as the subjestive-objective validity including subjects, phenomena, and also other subjects co-operating with it.

2. It is necessary to divide concepts intersubektivnosti (interaktsionalnosti) as properties of the subject to enter into interaction with other subjects (subject-subject relations) and interactivities as properties of interaction with active objects (the phenomena, subjects, actions, situations etc.), to some extent influencing on the subject, stimulating it to expansion of the kognitivnogo the spaces, inducing the subject to transformation of the subjestive-objective validity (subject-objective relations).

3. The category of the language subject becomes a universal language category in respect of realisation of both types kognitivno-dejatelnostnyh relations language means, irrespective of forms and degree of material expressiveness of the subject.

4. Owing to the semiotiko-functional analysis the typology of the subject as points of refraction of various lexical and grammatical and diskursivno-pragmatical relations in their statics and dynamics providing stability and transformations in the given category is deduced. Circle of the subject, kognitivno existing in the form of the "point of view", recreating the pseudo-absent subject as in respect of expression, and the maintenance is formed functionally-sinergeticheskaja.

The methodological basis of allocation of such category are positions of classics kognitivizma, in particular, J. Lakoffa which asserted, that in a category communication of concepts with daily human "mysledejatelnostju" (G.P.Schedrovitsky's term) is reflected. Such communication Lakoff named a conceptual embodiment. Some categories are perceived by the person at intuitive level, not realised intellectually. They «possess other, more important, psychological status in comparison with those concepts which are necessarily realised» [Lakoff 2004].

Categories of base level with epistemologicheskoj and the functional points of view are priority in relation to following factors: to perception and formation of images, the organisation of knowledge, ease of course kognitivnyh processes (training, recognition, storing etc.) and to ease of verbalisation of language expressions. It is possible to notice, that in this sense the anthropocentrism is constructed on base category Ego (), "point of view" becomes "reference point" in all factors set forth above. Thus, following Lakoffu, in some thought processes one member of a category () or a category part (for example, the subcategory personal or demonstrative pronouns) can replace a category as a whole.

So, kognitivnaja the model can be presented in following parametres:

■ Kognitivnye models structure thought and take part in formation of categories and in reasonings.

■ the Majority of categories spontaneously-are intuitive. These are so-called incarnate models. Those models which are not embodied, are used only osoznanno and with appreciable efforts.

«The essence conceptual voploshchennosti is concluded in kategorizatsii basic level and in it prioritetnosti. Kognitivnye models are used in portable or“ metonimicheskom ”a reasoning. The gradation of membership arises in that case when characterised kognitivnoj model the category contains a scale. The gradation of centrality results from interaction kognitivnyh models» [Lakoff 2004].

Thus, to allocation of such category as «the language subject», definition of its heuristic status, through the analysis of the categories which are the centre and periphery of a supercategory (J.S.Stepanova's term - [Stepans 2001]) accompanies. To nuclear it is necessary to carry a category personalnosti, i.e. a category of an involvement of the addressee and the sender in statement process. The central point of this category expressed at level «thoughts - internal speech», is category Ego presented by a pronominal paradigm as most generalising subject-subject of the relation (I - you) and the subject-objective of the relation (I/you - it). Kognitivnaja model (0 - environment) joins in a category as a centrifugal, peripheral category. Therefore a "base", central category of a supercategory «the language subject» is a category personalnosti, obrazuemaja from the point of view of Ego. The generalised subject expressed «on», is top periphery (on Lakoffu) the given category, and so-called «elimination of the subject» — the bottom point on a scale personalnosti — impersonality in sense "not-person" (fr. «il») (under E.Benvenista's theory [Benvenist 1974]):

Table 1. Gradualnost categories personalnosti (on Benvenistu)
Scale personalnosti
The person Not-person
1 person 2 person 3 person

Academician V.V.Vinogradov the term elimination of the person defined those cases when the speaking designates only one action, as though not caring about the operating subject [Vinogradov 1947, 462]. Elimination of the person it

Considered as an element in gradation of expression of the subject with different degree of definiteness. V.V. Vinogradov on Russian material considered value of the person at a verb as a scale going from the least multiple-valued form (first person) through semanticheski more extensible forms second and the third party, further through indefinite-personal value to elimination of the person and impersonality [Vinogradov 1947, 458-463 - is allocated by us CH].

However elimination of the subject of action is carried out not only leksiko-morphological means of expression of a category of the verbal person, but also syntactic ways at which the real figure «goes down in a rank», losing the central position in actantial syntactic schemes (for example, a passive in its multiple displays) [Silnitsky 1981].

Thus, elimination of the subject can be carried out leksikomorfologicheskimi and syntactic means. On a material of the French language process of elimination of the subject has been considered by V.G.Gakom. V.G.Gak represents process of generalisation and elimination of the person as follows: 1) it is concrete - the personal subject (with internal gradation from

Singularities to plurality; 2) the cumulative subject; 3) the collective subject; 4) the indefinite-personal subject; 5) the obobshchenno-personal subject; 6) the vaguely-index subject; 7) the eliminated subject; 8) impersonality (bessubektnost) [the Hook 1965].

By criterion of an inclusiveness into a supercategory «the language subject» enter, besides a category personalnosti, hierarchically structured categories (on a scale "top" - "bottom"): eksplitsitnost/implitsitnost,

Subjectivity, otsenochnost, an emotionality, ekspressivnost, odushevlennost/inanimateness, passivity-activity,

intensionalnost/ekstensionalnost, direct/indirect (metaphorical) referentsija etc.

By criterion bazovosti ("voploshchennosti"), prototypicalness, - as the most nuclear category the category of the subject-figure in its three vector measurements acts: "subject-objective" of the relation, «the subject

Subject »relations and relations« the subject-environment (dwellings) ».

V.G.Gak marked: «The is functional-semantic analysis of a category provides following problems:

1) studying of a category in respect of expression, that is revealing of various types of its expression, drawing up of stock of ways of expression of the given value with differentiation of nuclear and peripheral forms;

2) studying of a category in respect of the maintenance, that is drawing up of stock of private values, subcategories in the given category, also with distinction of nuclear and peripheral values; cases when the given semantic category is joined or merges with adjacent categories are thus traced;

3) parity revealing between forms and values;

4) definition of correlation of nuclear and peripheral forms »[the Hook 1998, 86].

Comparing, on the one hand, subjectivity displays as prototypical characteristic of the subject, i.e. nominator at word or morpheme level, and, with another, - such kognitivno-psychological characteristics as speech behaviour (subject), it is possible to assert, most likely, that the category "subject" includes and «an image of a category“ the person reasonable ”», and its syntactic roles when the place of the figure-person occupies any inanimate object and when the subject «is not visible almost» or is absent in the language or speech forms also entering in JAKM.

<< | >>
Âû òàêæå ìîæåòå íàéòè èíòåðåñóþùóþ èíôîðìàöèþ â íàó÷íîì ïîèñêîâèêå Otvety.Online. Âîñïîëüçóéòåñü ôîðìîé ïîèñêà:

More on topic 1.1. A category of the subject in antropotsentricheskoj to a paradigm:

  1. 2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject
  2. 2.1. A category of the semantico-syntactical subject
  3. 5.3. Phraseological means of expression of a category «the language subject»: the person and it simuljakry
  4. 1.2. The Semiotiko-functional method of research of a language category of the subject
  5. 1.1. Indeksalnye and nominative fields of a category of the subject
  8. the Contents of transformation of consumption within the limits of an information paradigm
  9. § 2. Methodological questions of a choice of a paradigm of the theory of the Internet
  10. intonation Studying in a humanitarian paradigm
  11. the Modern paradigm of social and economic development
  12. history of studying of advertising in a humanitarian paradigm
  13. 4.2. A paradigm of the theory of social responsibility of the integrated subjects of economic relations
  14. the Resource paradigm of potential of development of economy of region
  16. 1.1 Verdict of guilty without awarding punishment as an implementer of the regenerative approach in a modern paradigm of the criminal trial
  17. a choice of a research paradigm: a parity germenevtiyocheskogo, communicatively-pragmatical, kognitivnogo and psiholingviyosticheskogo aspects in modality studying