Expression of the subject by a pronoun “qui” in interrogativah

Practical activities of people are impossible without world around knowledge - she demands constant perfection kognitivnogo the device of an individual [Apostel 1981]. Prototypical expression of aspiration to new knowledge is the question [Langue fran5aise 1981].

The question represents the necessary moment in the course of knowledge. It carries out transition from old knowledge to the new. In this difficult process of knowledge by a question the doubt which basis is made by internal discrepancy and variability of things is expressed. The doubt arises at the person when the reality remains not clear and uncertain. The doubt and a question assume each other. The incomplete knowledge, doubt characterises such moment in knowledge when the event picture still precisely was not defined.

The question as a sign has the denotat. Interrogativ reflects a difficult situation formed as a result of interaction of two situations of referential level:

1). Kognitivnuju a situation which is characterised as problem and owing to which there are questions [Limantov 1975].

2). propozitsionalnuju a situation which operates aktsionalnyj a verb correlating with a verb of the narrative offer.

As we see, that there was a question, the situation necessarily should include a problem. This situation can be defined also as a situation of not resolved uncertainty. It characterises herself that average step of reflexion — a doubt step — questionnable which, according to O.Espersena, lays between a positive step — positive and negative — negative, therefore in semantic structure of a question joins sema ‘ dubitativnosti ’ (doubts, uncertainty) [Espersen 1958]. The structure interrogativnoj phrases in which the subject of speech is expressed, is reflected by human thinking and fixed in language in the form of this or that concrete interrogative syntactic design [Barulin 1980].

Designated by the form of a question event contains the statement that reality relations in this event are not represented up to the end clear since one of members of the relation [Hintikka 1974 is unknown; 1981]. In

Considered designs with a pronoun "qui", carrying out a subject role, search of the semantic subject, the manufacturer of action is conducted. As the figure is unknown for speaking, an interrogative element “qui”, entering into question structure, is formal expression semy dubitativnosti, laying as it has already been noted, at the heart of a problem situation. It is necessary to tell, that an interrogative element “qui”, carrying out function of a syntactic subject, already in itself it is substantial. It bears certain, far incomplete information on the semantic subject. The pronoun "qui" is the carrier semy "odushevlennosti" and as that corresponds with the active animated substance and it aktsionalnymi predicative characteristics (verbs, participles etc.) . In interrogativnyh the designs which are a part of dynamic situations, the pronoun “qui” meets in a combination c active predicates in which are allocated semy consciousness and effort, voluntariness, purposefulness etc., — predicates which suppose statement of questions: ‘ That does? ’; ‘ What for? ’ [Alisova 1971, 29]. Dynamics of a situation in which the subject is involved, is marked by presence semy "activity" in lexical value of a transitive or intransitive verb. The interrogative word “qui” as one of the basic components of semantic structure pronominal interrogativov is considered by us as a data carrier which character, its reality reveals in so-called "posttsedente" (katafore) — an element

The subsequent text (as a rule, though and not always, expressed in a reciprocal remark) to which the pledged interrogative word sends [Dubois 1965]. A pronoun “qui” name the unique spokesman of a category voprositelnosti in interrogativnyh the designs directed on revealing of the semantic subject. Value, sense "dubitativnosti", put in pawn in semantics “qui”, gives character voprositelnosti to all structure. The pronoun “qui” in an interrogative design, more likely, is directed on finding-out, on search of the real figure, instead of on its concrete, adequate to a reality, expression. With the help “qui” in a role of a syntactic subject the subject of speech tries to achieve from the addressee of identification, referentsialnosti the semantic subject. And though on the

To semantic volume a pronoun “qui” in interrrogative not equally uncertain “on” (“on” — semanticheski is wider), “qui” in a condition to reflect any figure or in general anybody. This interrogative pronominal word corresponds with personal pronouns. Illustrating this thought, we offer the following scheme (compare [Pottier 1992]):

The scheme 4. Semantic correlation of an interrogative substitute of the subject with uncertain pronouns

Sootnositelnost interrogative "qui" with the uncertain

With pronouns “quelqu’un”, “quiconque”, “personne” in a subject position in interrogative confirms presence "dubitativnosti" in structure of an interrogative pronoun. On communication of these two types - interrogative and
Uncertain - pronouns specified still A.Frej in 1940 [Frei 1940]. The interrelation of these pronouns is completely not casual: she assumes a generality in their semantic structure semy "uncertainty". However dubitativnost assumes additional distribution of the elements expressing it in a reciprocal remark — it is seldom admissible in the answer: “Qui a crie? — Personne (n’a crie)”; ”Qui a crie? — Quiconque”. (Who shouted? - Someone).

The semantic structure of a sememe “qui” includes obshchekategorialnuju to this voprositelnosti, consisting simultaneously from this dubitativnosti, uncertainty and odushevlennosti in opposition to “que". Presuppozitsija odushevlennosti the asking exists at level ekzistalno - propozitsionalnogo knowledge, referentsialnye characteristics of the subject come to light in the answer. Therefore the answer at level obshcheekzistalnyh knowledge is represented not informative (irrelevantnym). Though in certain situations the question is directed not on the subject (its action is accepted as given in presuppozitsii), e.g., «Who shouted?» (presuppozitsija ‘ Someone shouted ’), and at all proposition: «Who has asked?» (Whether presuppozitsija ‘ someone Has asked something? ’, i.e. it is not known, whether took a place action). In the French language, as well as in Russian, more intensively ascending tone in the end of a phrase becomes a marker: “Qui | a crie?” (In presuppozitsii the statement - «On a crie») VS: “ Qui a crie |? (In presuppozitsii a question «Est-ce que quelqu’un a crie?»). It is possible to name last type a question with double dubitativnostju. (About prosodii as about communicative base and the pragmatical operator see [Potapov 2003; 2006; Martin-Baltars 1977]).

Differently, a question “qui?” Speaking as though throws the bridge between uncertainty, ignorance of the subject to knowledge concrete, to its reviewer. Despite nevyrazhennost the semantic subject, in a question the presumption of its existence is marked and its action in dynamics propozitsionalnoj situations is designated: it while is unknown, but question statement objectively kauziruet its existence.

Speaking, asking question, verbalizuet a design in which “qui” eksplitsitno the reduced subject expresses. For example:

(60) «— Pozzo, s’agrippant a Lucky qui, sous nouveau poids, chancelle: Qu’y-a-t-il? Qui a crie?

— Estragon: C’est Godot »(S. Beckett.« En attendant Godot », p.43);

(61) — Messalinus: Et qui t’a loue a moi pour un sou par jour?

— Jeune gar5on: Un type quelconque »(J. Giono.«Domitien», p.9).

The analysis of examples (60) and (61) reveals gradualnost referentsialnoj information (knowledge) in the answer to a question with “qui”: as it was already marked, proper names are focused exclusively on personal, referential knowledge [Jokojama 2005] while uncertainty referentsii demands the comment, the argument or its markers — indefinite-personal pronouns or adjectives (quiconque, quelconque), subject nominations - ‘ omnibuses ’ (Un type).

The comparative analysis of syntactic and semantic structures of the given kind interrogativov finds out a number of features, characteristic for a question from it diaforicheskimi (anaforo-kataforicheskimi) communications. For example:

(62) «Argire: Qui combattra?

Tancrede: Qui? Moi ». (F. Voltaire.«Tancrede», p. 44);

(63) «Fraenkel: Qui vient avec vous? Riri leve la main.

Pierre Fournier: Moi (A. Adamov. «Le printemps», p. 87);

(64) «Madame de Thauzette: Monsieur de Bardannes aime Denise.

Madame de Bardannes, avec une sorte d’effroi: Qui vous a dit cela?

Madame de Thauzette: Lui-meme »(A. Dumas fils.«Denise», p. 103);

(65) «Pierre Fournier: Qui a pris possession de l’hotel de ville?

Premier garde: Brunel »(A. Adamov.« Le printemps », p. 18).

In the resulted examples in quality katafory acts “qui” interrogativa. Anaforoj an interrogative pronoun “qui” personal pronouns (moi, lui-meme), uncertain (personne), proper names (Brunei) act, as a rule. Hence, the interrogative element “qui” is kataforicheskim a substitute of the subject, the person, the figure. Referentsija “qui” carries anaforichesky character since it is established through denotativnuju correlation to the anaforicheskimi korreljatami: personal,

Uncertain etc. pronouns, proper names and so forth

Communication interrogative “qui” with the reviewer graphically looks


The table № 7. Examples diaforicheskoj communications of the reduced subject - interrogativa (qui)

Example (62) qui ^ moi = Tancrede
Example (63): qui ^ moi Pierre Fournier
Example (64): qui ^ lui-meme = monsieur de Bardannes
Example (65): qui ^ Brunel

As is known, pronouns of the first and second person have no constant referential communication with the validity. Their referential communications are established only at the moment of speech, break up, as soon as this moment passes, and out of it do not exist [Benvenist 1974; Bjuler 2000; Paducheva 1985; Benveniste 1966; Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2002, etc.].

For example, questions Qui t’a dit cela?; Qui te le demande? Can be understood as inquiry of the information on the semantic subject unknown for the sender, and as a remark underlining reaction with illokutivnoj by force of disagreement with the previous statements, i.e. Moi, je ne l ’ ai rien dit; Personne ne te demande rien.

Thus ’ qui ’, losing this of the subject of action, desemantiziruetsja also carries out functions illokutivnogo a marker opravdyvanija, disagreement etc. Here too the same syntactic structure can correspond to several semantic, i.e. one meaning corresponds with the several meant. This asymmetry of the form and the maintenance speaks that semantics area possesses bolshej mobility whereas the syntax sphere is extremely stable also combinative possibilities at syntax level are limited enough [Tarasova 1992].

The explanation of the speech uses of the interrogative form accepted in research is based on position about "primary" and "secondary" functions (see above). The phenomenon of asymmetry of the form and the maintenance is realised in form possibility to have a number of functions. In the light of practical use of language it is necessary to understand appointment of language unit as function in speech. In narrower sense the concept of function is used as a role of a language element in the statement. Any grammatical form exists in language to display a reality in kognitivnoj to system of the person. This semantic importance makes fundamental and primary function of the grammatical form. Primary function always meaning as it reflects real communications of things and is based on opposition existence [Gak 1974, 76]. Occurrence of secondary functions is connected with existence of semantic communications between concepts. Among secondary functions neutralisation functions (sense expansion, generalisation), secondary meaning function (sense carrying over, a metaphor) and secondary non-significant function (desemantizatsija) which losing semantic value, gets either front function, or pragmatical [the Hook 1998] are allocated.

It is necessary to consider as genetically initial function of a question question function. However development and enrichment of the language conducted to that the question is used in various conditions, is reinterpreted, gets secondary functions. Subjective, i.e. at will of the speaking subject, the modal use of a question with "qui" in a position of a subject instead of a reduction of the semantic subject gets functions of expression of the indirect statement, the indirect negation, different emotional reactions speaking as a result of acquisition interrogativom secondary functions.

Formal indicator of change of function is, first of all, the position of an interrogative remark as a part of a question-answer complex [Borisov 2007; the Hook 1988; Devkin 1979; Roulet 1985]. Interrogative construction takes of a position of an initial remark in the primary function. For revealing of the semantic subject it demands referentsialnogo the answer (Tab. 7 see).

The interrogative construction which appointment is intended concealment of the subject and, thereby, expressions of various additional senses, takes of a position of a reciprocal remark. Here semantics «illokutivnogo constraint» is to some extent broken at its formal observance [Aрутюновa 1970; Rams 1992; Demjankov 1982].

Let's consider the subjective reasons nevyrazhennosti the semantic subject an interrogative design with “qui” in a subject position.

<< | >>

More on topic Expression of the subject by a pronoun “qui” in interrogativah:

  1. 3.1.3. A reduction of the semantic subject a pronoun“qui”
  2. 3.2.1. A reduction of the subject a pronoun “qui” in the questions which are carrying out secondary function
  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. 3.1.2. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun "yes"
  7. “New I”.
  8. 2. The basic literature at the rate “economy History”
  9. § 2.1. Institute “agency” in Scotland: concept, sphere of action of agents and their power
  10. § 3 Problem of the legal maintenance of concept “the real union” on an example of the Kingdom Polish.
  11. §2. Problems of realisation of a principle “ant dedere ant judicare” concerning certificates of illegal intervention
  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. 4.2. Metonimichesky expression of the semantic subject
  16. 5.3. Phraseological means of expression of a category «the language subject»: the person and it simuljakry
  19. influence of electromagnetic radiance on an expression of genes
  20. 2.4. "Sight" from within ”»: S.I.Petrov and M.A.Rybakov