<<

CONCLUSIONS

the Subject — the difficult category investigated by philosophy, kognitologiej, psychology and linguistics. The category of the subject demands transtsendentalnoj abstraction and at the same time exists financially in various subject reprezentatsijah (SR), the basic which material environment is rechemyslitelnaja activity, and as their set the category «the language subject», having the structured maintenance reflecting semiotics asymmetry of the plan of the maintenance and the plan of expression acts.

1. From a position evolutionary epistemologii and biosemiotics the knowledge receives the expanded treatment as adaptation of "subject" 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 necessarily 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. In kognitivnom linguistics and in modern 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. Thus, it is necessary to allocate two plans: kognitivnoe the maintenance of the subject and its language value without what the adequate understanding of a category «the language subject» is impossible.

2. Language system deeply antropotsentrichna. The invariant essence of language is shown in kognitivnoj categories "point of view" (A.V.Kravchenko) or «interpretanta a sign» (CH.S.pier) which define perception and, finally, sense of the message. Characteristic for "subject" from a position of different sciences two fundamental characteristics from this follow:

. 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.

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

3. It is necessary to divide concepts intersubektivnosti (interaktsionalnosti) as properties of the subject to enter into interaction with other subjects (the subject-subject of the relation) and interactivities

As properties of interaction with active objects (the phenomena, subjects, actions, situations etc.), to some extent influencing the subject, stimulating it to expansion of the kognitivnogo the spaces, inducing the subject to transformation subektivnoobektivnoj the validity (the subject-objective of the relation).

4. At use of 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. Is functional-semiotics 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.

5. Kognitivnoj «the language subject» acts as the precondition of research of a category the theory of J. Lakoffa about kategorialnom an embodiment (base, intuitive categories possess more important, psychological status in comparison with those concepts which are necessarily realised). Hierarchy kategorizatsii when «more base categories are concentrated“ in the middle of "hierarchy" from the general to the particular ”is observed. Generalisation goes“ upwards ”from base level, and the specification —“ downwards ”». So:

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.

6. To allocation of such supercategory as «the language subject», accompanies definition of its heuristic status through the analysis of the categories which are the centre and periphery of a supercategory. To nuclear it is necessary to carry a category personalnosti, i.e. a category of an involvement of the sender and the addressee 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 subektsubektnye 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 subcategory. Therefore a "base", central category of a supercategory «the language subject» is a category, obrazuemaja from the point of view of Ego. The generalised subject (fr. « on ») is top periphery of a category (on Lakoffu), 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).

7. By criterion bazovosti ("voploshchennosti"), prototypicalness,

As the central 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) ».

8. A basis of research of a category «the language subject» makes the is functional-semiotics method considering language as the tool of speech activity so, what even the system aspect of language necessarily reflects its functional potential and signs of its real functioning (N.N.Boldyrev).

9. Special positions of participants of a speech situation predetermine communication of a sign not only with subjects and situations on which it is informed in the statement, but also with each of them.

Thus, the sense of any speech statement is derivative of interface intentsionalnostej and implikatsy (speech intentions and conclusions) co-operating speech subjects concerning the reviewer.

10. On the basis of the detailed analysis of existing concepts of a language sign (K.Bjuler, C.S.Pirs, R.Yakobson) within the limits of the semiotics approach it is possible to assert, that the sign nature is defined by its function in language-speech. The is functional-semiotics approach allows to present dynamics of typology of signs on language, to divide speech certificates on «correlated with the subject» and «distracted from the subject» (K.Bjuler), into certificates «here and now» (enonciation - on E.Benvenistu) which "are pragmatic and situational", and speech products in which «there is a clearing of the offer of a speech situation» (K.Bjuler). Such result of the speech certificate of E.Benvenist named «enonce». In quality «distracted from the subject» are considered steady frazeologizirovannye, stereotypic or paremicheskie statements. However, being released from semantics situations (pragmatists), the linguist, nesmotrja on any immanentizm, should recognise the sign nature of language so both sign type, and the plan of its content (semantics). The subject should not be considered exclusively at level sintakticheskosemanticheskoj categories, but, representing any type of a sign (an icon, an index, a symbol) to be considered in three semiotics measurements (sintaktika-semantics-pragmatist). In such foreshortening all "toolkit" of system of language, its elements and categories are directed on specific goal achievement, namely «sematologicheskoj relevance» (on K.Bjuleru), i.e. the combination of elements of system (JAS) and their functions depends on the message purposes according to a situation and intentsionalnostjami partners in communications.

11. Considering a category «the language subject» as kategorialnoe unity of a hyperfield of the subject in language, we lean on kategorialnuju kategorializatsiju the language subject (J. Lakoff), on functional - polevyj a principle of the organisation of the elements expressing a category (including gradualnost and shkalirovanie, defining kernel and periphery) (A.V.Bondarko, K.Bjuler, V.G.Gak, etc.) and in respect of expression — on prototipicheski relevant division on dejkticheskoe and a nominative field in language (K.Bjuler).

12. A functional field personalnosti and «kategorialnoe unity»

The subject is included by all three types personal dejksisa. For example, in the French language: Je/moi; Tu/toi; Celui; Ceux/Celles, etc., anaforokataforicheskie pronouns Ceux, qui...; Celui-ci... Etc. This type of expression of the subject is based on signs-indexes and leans against a momentary situation of speech or a context. On embodiment degree these categories are in the centre of an is functional-semantic field of the subject (most «are momentary, osjazatelny»). The near periphery aspiring upwards on a scale obobshchennosti («semantic neraschlenennosti»), is occupied with pronouns «On» / »Qa», showing the centripetal tendency (On - Je/Tu/Ils, etc.) . Nominative expression of the subject represents distant periphery, consists of signs-symbols (conventional words of language). Their communication with the subject is defined by their semantico-syntactical function (first of all, it it is the figure-subject) and their reference to the pragmatical classes subjectively presented to these propozitsionalnoj to a position speaking. Intermediate position (near periphery) occupy psevdoikonicheskie signs — proper names which, in turn, share on two classes - names «on acquaintance» and «names under the description». The first, being signs-icons, aspire to the kernel centre — personal dejksisu, the second - to denominativnym to signs-symbols with their semantic structure of the plan of the maintenance.

13. The is functional-semantic field of the subject is formed also by various lexical and grammatical categories with different degree of relevance (nearness to a field kernel):

Odushevlennost/inanimateness; ekstensionalnost (the reviewer, concept volume)/intensionalnost (the concept maintenance), and also polyphony of the speaking (listening) subject in which sinkretichno are combined the subject speaking, the subject worrying (intentsionalnyj) and the subject - protagonist (figure). In «the offer (text) discharged of the subject» (K.Bjuler) on the foreground leaves protagonist. But any «obektivizatsija» has speeches behind herself "enuntsiatora" with its "point of view".

14. Extreme display of decentralisation and centrifugal aspiration to boundary periphery of a category «the language subject» is a reduction, or elimination of the subject from the superficial plan of expression. However research shows, that reduction forms are various, and the zero form of the subject or is restored in a kind implitsitnogo the reviewer, or exists in the form of a general concept of the subject (OPS) in model where the subject is dissolved in the environment («Vouloir c'est pouvoir»). Last model is often used in metaforizatsii, frazeologizatsii and "top wasps" ("platitudes", maksimah, proverbs etc.), playing various roles in the statement and a discourse.

15. Uncertainty assumes objective elimination semantichekogo the subject the speaking. Definiteness, on the contrary, acts as the subjective factor of elimination of the subject.

<< | >>
A source: ALEXANDER MIHAJLOVICH CHERVONYJ. STRUCTURE And FUNCTIONAL DYNAMICS of the CATEGORY «the LANGUAGE SUBJECT» (ON the MATERIAL of the FRENCH LANGUAGE). 2014
Âû òàêæå ìîæåòå íàéòè èíòåðåñóþùóþ èíôîðìàöèþ â íàó÷íîì ïîèñêîâèêå Otvety.Online. Âîñïîëüçóéòåñü ôîðìîé ïîèñêà:

More on topic CONCLUSIONS:

  1. CONCLUSIONS ON CHAPTER 1
  2. Conclusions
  3. Conclusions
  4. Conclusions
  5. conclusions
  6. Conclusions
  7. Conclusions
  8. conclusions
  9. CONCLUSIONS
  10. conclusions