1.1. Indeksalnye and nominative fields of a category of the subject

As is known, working out dejksisa - the index words existing on a level with descriptive words-symbols [Bjuler 2000] became one of strengths bjulerovskoj to "the language Theory». Having divided a lexicon on dejkticheskoe and descriptive weeding, K.Bjuler has allocated three types dejksisa:

1) dejksis actual (ad oculus) which is the centre dejkticheskogo (index) field, including the central elements «I - here - now», and am guided by the moment of speech and a speech situation;

2) anaforo-kataforichesky (diaforichesky) dejksis where the words sending or to previous text (anafora) or joined, by a principle antitsipatsii, to the subsequent text, in which K.Bjuler included such "markers", as the unions, particles, allied words and their combinations;

3) dejksis «ad phantasma» — index means of the language, allowing to carry out "transferring" to the world of memoirs or any another «the possible world» narrations (JAP), with preservation personal (I - you - it - someone etc.), spatial (here - there - somewhere etc.) and time (now - then - once etc.) reference points.

K.Bjuler writes: « The person can mentally present another absent by means of language means only because there are movings. If in the story there is a speech (in the elementary boundary case which it is possible for itself to present) only about restoration of a scene which saw together speaking both listening and which is fresh in memory both then many words is not required. First of all it is possible to reduce to a minimum nazyvnye the words setting qualitative definiteness of subjects and events. The sketch of scenery Is required only to convert actual pertseptivnoe space in a scene on which the speaking can to show sensually perceived gestures the present. Now, having been in the know, the listener again will see there the spiritual sight that it is no time saw physically. Not much that case when the situation which witness the listener was not is described differs, — there is enough, that to it the type of described action, say, was clear if it is a question of homeric fight. «I here - it there - here» — so begin a stream the story-teller with index gestures, and the scene is ready, the cash space is transformed to a scene »[Bjuler 2000, 126].

It is easy to notice, that such "movings" are today an object of research of various theories of "the possible worlds» and connected with them, except ukazatelnosti, problems referentsii, modalities etc. [Grandmother's 2001; Kozintsev 2008; Red 1998; Kulakova 2010; Ladygin 1997; Ljuiz 1999; Nikolaev 2009; Pavilyonis 1993, etc.].

It is obvious, that the 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/Celle; Ceux/Celles, etc.

The third type of markers dejksisa «ad phantasma» does not make on Bjuleru a separate lexical layer, and unites, more likely, two previous. On the one hand, it anaforo-kataforichesky dejksis (compare «Ceux, qui...»; «Celui-ci...» Etc.). Not casually K.Bjuler specifies: «From the psychological point of view any anaforicheskoe the use of index words assumes only that the sender and the addressee have before itself a speech stream as some whole to which parts it is possible to make prospektivnuju or retrospective sending» [Bjuler 2000, 112].

On the other hand, it is the mechanism of "transferring" and actual dejksisa «I - here - now"in"the possible world» language product or prospektivnogo spaces: «the Pedestrian, the horseman or the driver is focused on districts usually so, that the given direction of movement is a determinative defining, that such"forward". Already this orientation,

If to look narrowly more attentively, contains solving clearing of momentary position of a body and under known conditions demands moving to fictitious position when the moving should specify those «on the right and at the left» into which the district in relation to a direction of its movement is divided. Similar installations are clearly realised, when in the story there is a speech, for example, about the right or left coast of Rhine or Seny. All know, that similar instructions deliver sometimes difficulties to the reader. The reader should remember at times and specially internally to be adjusted and be reconstructed, correctly to follow these instructions, and there is not one reception of achievement of this purpose. In any case everyone to whom owing to its "moving" it is possible, feels, that finally in it participates its momentary osjazatelnyj an image of a body »[Bjuler 2000, 111].

Second "hyperfield" of language on K.Bjuleru is the symbolical field consisting from «nominative words», connected with a world around reality konventsionalno by rules of lexical and grammatical system of this or that language.

K.Bjuler marks: «Index words also are symbols (and not just signals); type words da and dort ‘ there ’ are symbolical, they name, so to say, geometrical space, i.e. that place surrounding speaking in each concrete case where there is a specified object, in the same way, as heute ‘ today ’, as a matter of fact, designates set of days when this word can be said, ich ‘ I ’ - all potential senders of human messages, a du ‘ you ’ - a class of addressees of the message. Nevertheless between these names and other nazyvnymi language words the distinction, consisting that words of considered type every time demand the specification of the value in an index field of language, the specification which is carried out by means of sensually perceived data delivered by an index field in each concrete case» [Bjuler 2000, 83] remains.

The nominative field of the subject joins all words reflecting partitioning of the world on subject essence, in which process «) concrete physical subjects kategorizujutsja as individnye holisticheskie representatives of a class (e.g., a tree, an animal, the house); occurs kategorizatsija concrete (plural) subjects as the areas of space allocated by criterion of quantity and compactness of a concentration same individnyh of the subjects (« a tree »- wood, an animal ^ flight, the house ^ village); concrete physical subjects as holisticheskie essence pereosmysljajutsja in the structured areas of space with further fractional subject kategorizatsiej (« a tree »— a trunk, roots, a crone, branches, leaves;« an animal »— a head, a trunk, feet, a tail;« The house »— walls, a roof, a porch, a door, windows); within the limits of wide (universal) classes the subclasses of concrete subjects characterised by this or that constant set of minor signs (a tree ^ a pine, a birch, an aspen are allocated; an animal ^ a bear, a fox, a hare; the house ^ a log hut, a hut, a tower, a private residence) etc. The total taksonomicheskih criteria on which there is a further naive partitioning of the world, is difficult to define with accuracy, yes in it and there is necessity» [no Kravchenko 2004, 156].

Besides such kategorizatsii there is a simplified system of pronouns with which K.Bjuler allocates first of all dejkticheskimi with the functions, capable in speech to replace any member of ontologic taxonomy. Distinction between systems (fields) lays in a way of a nomination and is defined by the purposes which are pursued by the nominator. «The tree has failed ^ It has failed (has fallen) ^ Something has fallen ^ All has failed» etc.

Thus, means of expression of an is functional-semantic field of a category of the subject can be divided on two components: indeksalno - a pronominal field and a deskriptivno-nominative field. As to the last it also can be considered from the point of view of ontologic classes and pragmatical classes as about it writes V.G.Gak: « Pragmatical classes reflect groupings of subjects in concrete situations, depending on perception of the subject, from their behaviour or use by the given subjects at present and in the given place. They are formed or by restriction of an ontologic class (for example, in this case it is a question not of all pets, but about their part), or by crossing of ontologic classes when elements of different ontologic classes unite on the basis of any others, let even the most subjective and time, signs. For example, "house", "tree", "trolley bus" concern various ontologic classes but if in concrete conditions, having looked in a window, somebody tells: I see street with houses and trees on which the trolley bus these three elements form a new class — a class «subjects goes, visible the given person at present». Thus, if in ontologic aspect concepts (classes) comparable and incomparable in pragmatical aspect any classes can appear comparable differ and enter into wider set. Pragmatical classes are formed on the basis of generalisation of any signs which are essential to the perceiving person (ego), here (hic), and now (nunc) »[the Hook 1998, 34].

Thus, in a kernel of an is functional-semantic field personalnosti costs ego speaking and alter ego the addressee (I — you) through the message "here" and "now", i.e. at the moment of speech. Concerning this moment the general representations about the perceived validity which are presented generalising or neopredelennolichnymi (on) are built most; relative or demonstrative pronouns (celle-ci; celui-la), the nominative concrete definition of the reviewer — the animated individual — a proper name, animated a being or an inanimate object — a common noun further follows.

Anthropotsentrichesky character of a nominativno-semantic field of the subject taking into account rate of the use of all set SR allows to assert with confidence, that in a field kernel is personal dejksis (very seldom and only in certain conditions the person names itself, and sometimes and other characters of "the dialogical play» - statements, not a personal pronoun I/you, and a proper name). E.Benvenist writes, that if the form “moi” () sintaksicheski is related to proper names its difference consists that the proper name has the denotatom the unique and concrete person while “moi” referentno it is only temporary at the moment of speech [Benvenist 1974].

The is functional-semantic field of the subject can be expressed two types of a designation of "characters" (les actants) — dejkticheskim (mestoimenno-index) and in detail-nominative, ways of a nomination differing from each other and features referentsii (way of representation denotata in a sign - on G aku).

Special position occupies antroponimicheskoe a lexical field (proper names) and some other ways of a nomination of the subject about which writes V.G.Gak (see above).

The scheme 1. Urovnevaja (egocentric) scheme of a field of the French

Actantial pronouns in dejkticheskom and nominative fields


The total generalised table represents a lexico-semantic field of the subject as follows:

Table 3. Typology of lexical and grammatical means of expression

Categories of the subject

mestoimenno - The Anthroponimichesky Denotativno -
dejktichesky a class Class Nominative class

Special position in this classification occupies antroponimichesky a class. Many works in domestic and foreign linguistics [Rylov 2006 are devoted properties of a proper name; Stepans 1981а; Tjukalova 2005; Hintikka 1970], etc.

If, proceeding from conceptual kategorizatsii J. Lakoffa, mestoimenno-dejktichesky the class carries out a role of a base "incarnate" category and occupies a middle point of abstraction in gradualnoj kategorialnosti the language subject since does not demand additional kognitivnyh efforts. Onomastikon «demands special kognitivnyh efforts» for mastering of proper names, and in other words — "lichnostno-referential" knowledge.

J.Hintikka [Hintikka 1970] suggests to distinguish knowledge of people «under the description» and knowledge «on acquaintance». Objects of knowledge under the description are, in particular, the persons, widely known the public which can be described, personally them not knowing. Among objects of knowledge on acquaintance it is possible to allocate those people in whom it is possible to specify gesture. The opposition entered by J.Hintikkoj, from our point of view, proves intermediate position onomastikona between dejksisom and denotativno - nominative words: {I - you/it (Petja) vs Ilja Муромец/Ch. de Gaulle}. In terms of typology of CH.S.pier is the first (prototipicheski) sign type — ikonichesky the language sign, having the denotatom «the image, an image, the person» the subject.

As marks O.Jokojama, «knowledge of public figures which J.Hintikka names« knowledge under the description », is indirect as usually it do not receive directly, and the knowledge on acquaintance is a knowledge direct, primary in spite of the fact that popularisation of visual mass media in a modern society gradually leads to border washing out between these two kinds of knowledge. . Whichever there was a concrete feature set which are meant by the person And, asserting that knows Eugene Semenovu and whichever there was a source of this knowledge, we will consider subjective conviction And in the ability to correlate the given unique feature set with a certain label "Eugene Semenova" (that is to put in conformity to the given set of signs a certain chain of the phonemes, attributed to corresponding "real" set of the signs representing Eugene Semenovu) as a necessary and sufficient condition of that And possesses referentsialnym knowledge (referential knowledge) the person by name of Eugene Semenova »[Jokojama 2005, 3335].

Therefore proper names and some referential common nouns demand personal knowledge (for example, in artiklevyh languages designated by a definite article) and there is above on a scale kategorialnoj voploshchennosti Lakoffa (concrete definition) while denotativnye words demand not personal knowledge, and knowledge of a code and aspires to generalisation (the house, wood, a dog, the person etc.), occupying scale "bottom" kategorialnoj voploshchennosti.

Translating kategorialnoe shkalirovanie J. Lakoffa in a recognised paradigm kategorialnogo fields, it is possible to tell, that a category kernel «the language subject» occupy personal and some other pronouns, near periphery — referential names, and distant periphery — denotativno nominative designations. In the kernel there is a division into the persons (ja I), participating in speech contact, and "not-person" (it/it/they), not

Participating in a speech situation, but making subjects of a subject situation (about whom/than it is spoken) and occupying intermediate position between a kernel and near periphery of a category. Subjects concern near periphery — objects referentsialnogo knowledge (on acquaintance, the knowledge divided by the sender and the addressee). Further from a kernel kategorialnogo fields of the subject are the proper names, known to the majority of the native speakers, often turning to names

"Nominal", signs-symbols affektivno-aksiologicheskoj

orientirovannosti (Tartjuf, Napoleon etc.). At last, on periphery kategorialnogo fields are the subjects-protagonisty, which semantics is known or from a language code (an elephant, a dog, pterodaktil) or under the description: «This being similar to a lizard, has risen on hinder legs and has started singing». Such centrifugal shkalirovanie it is possible to present as follows:

The table № 4. Centrifugal kategorizatsija elements

Is functional-semantic field (category) the language subject

Kernel I - YOU
Eugene Semenova
Ilja Muromets, A.Blok
' AT g My neigbour from 23rd apartment
Periphery Secular lioness

Representing kategorialnoe a field of the subject, it is possible to ascertain certain freedom in means of language expression of this or that element of this field (personal and demonstrative pronouns, nouns, verbs, - «it is better than an adverb late, than never» - and t.d), coming nearer or leaving from the personification centre. Extreme periphery of a category «the language subject» is its reduction or "elimination" from the superficial plan of expression and transformation in signs (markers) subektnosti, or subjectivity (see more low), subject reprezentativy (SR), promoting implitsitnomu to existence of the subject at level of "a general concept of the subject» (OPS), filling formed kognitivnuju a lacuna.

<< | >>

More on topic 1.1. Indeksalnye and nominative fields of a category of the subject:

  1. nevyrazhennost the semantic subject in the nominative offer
  2. 2.3. A role of the predicative centre in definition funktsionalnosemanticheskogo fields of the subject
  3. 2.1. A category of the semantico-syntactical subject
  4. 1.1. A category of the subject in antropotsentricheskoj to a paradigm
  5. 5.3. Phraseological means of expression of a category «the language subject»: the person and it simuljakry
  7. 1.2. The Semiotiko-functional method of research of a language category of the subject
  9. 2. 1. The phenomenological theory of polarisation in variation fields
  10. switching Processes in fields frequency of 50 Hz
  11. switching Processes in sinusoidal fields of different frequencies
  12. The analysis of the associative fields allocated to a gender sign
  13. 4.2. Key semantic fields in Igor Severjanina's art world
  14. switching Processes in pulsing fields in the form of a meander
  17. 3.1.3. Measurings of temperature fields