5.3. Phraseological means of expression of a category «the language subject»: the person and it simuljakry

Nuclear slotami categories «the language subject», besides metalanguage slota «sintaktiko-semantic reprezentatsija» (subjects, the syntactic subject and so forth), are sloty «intellectual activity of the subject» and «speech activity of the subject», categories revealing the functional environment.

Whether exist phraseologically expressed sloty categories «the language subject», united in groups to a field sign? We answer this question positively. Moreover, by analogy to lexical fields of a category unite in wider associative formations which it is possible to name categories more a high rank, generalising categories. If to recollect «semantic primitive things» A.Vezhbitskoj it is possible to speak about synthesis of such primitive things in more difficult formations - categories, kategorialnye fields. For example, the allocated S.M.Kravtsov kontsept «Behaviour of the person», on the one hand, is represented "frazeosemanticheskim" a field and includes "microfields": « Behaviour aggressive "," Behaviour demonstrative », etc. (only 14) [Kravtsov 2008, 110-111]. However, undoubtedly, language presentations of displays of this or that type of behaviour of the person uncountable set even if to try to limit certain types of behaviour in phraseological forms, tipologizirovat, breaking on microfields. For example, in speech situation FE« dorer la pilule »can be aksiologicheski positive or pejorativnoj (ironical etc.) in this connection the most steadfast attention is deserved by a problem of functioning of these phraseological units in speech.

In the usual statement - judgement the subject can incorporate in the first person: «I - against!», t.e to comprise the subject lokutivnogo the certificate and intentsionalnogo (intellectual) subject illokutivnogo the certificate and protagonista, hidden for "I", and actually — Ivanov Riharda Ivanovicha who expresses disagreement with transition to winter time.

To bear responsibility (it is possible, and legal, for example, in a jury) it is necessary to all three subjects, ontologically united in one physical (or legal) the person. Therefore it is difficult to imagine the type statement «*Je vois lapaille dans I’oeil du prochain et je ne vois la poutre dans le mien». Such phrase contradicts «maksime a step» J. Licha: «not to condemn itself» [Leech 1983].

What functionally important in the metaphorical thesaurus the phraseology including paremiju, for example, "bibleizmy" bears? Nazidatelnost, on the one hand (the subject of the statement addresses or to the addressee in quality protagonista, or characterises 3-person). On the other hand, — leaving from responsibility, the reference to the standard opinion, «elimination of the subject». Such dodges are familiar for a long time to logiko-rhetorical studies [Schopenhauer 1900].

The explicit sintaktiko-semantic subject "I", «Je», «I» etc. can replace «metaphors with which we live» [Lakoff 2008]. So, J. Lakoff and M.Johnson confirm, «that processes of human thinking are in many respects metaphoric. It that means when we say that the conceptual system of the person is structured and defined by means of a metaphor. Metaphors as natural language expressions are possible just because they are metaphors of conceptual system of the person» [In the same place: 27].

According to G.Guillaume to recognise in language the social phenomenon what it is owing to its use by people as means eksteriorizatsii and transfers of the thoughts and feelings, and not to see in it actually human phenomenon, i.e. vnesotsialnogo, the prisoner in the person who is speaking or not speaking, but thinking, is means to lose any possibility of knowledge of its structure which have arisen not from a meeting of the person with the person, and from eternal opposition of the person and the Universe, a universum, from specifically human conditions of this collision, the language structure [Guillaume 1992, 162] became a certain which mirror.

We had been allocated nuclear components of a category «the language subject» into whom the phraseological units of the French language designating intellectual and speech actions of the person enter first of all, the lexical and grammatical analysis of structures of given phraseological units is carried out.

During research it was found out, that kategorialnye fields ’ Intellectual activity of the person ’ and ‘ Language activity of the person ’ can be presented in the form of a kernel of an is functional-semantic field (FSP) to a category «the language subject».

FSP intellectual activity it is non-uniform, its components can be logically consistently structured. Constants (semantic support of a field) form in turn a number of subfields with the components which value is expressed in modern French language not only corresponding lexemes, but also more difficult leksiko - semantic formations - phraseological units. Unlike a separate lexical unit phraseological units express more developed sense of concept transferring besides the relation of native speakers to intellectual activity.

As a result of analytical processing of a material we had been allocated following constants or stages of mental activity of the person:

1. The process of thinking assuming object of thought (to think, reflect etc.): mettre dans la (sur la; en) balance - to consider, weigh pro and contra to compare; faire son compte de - to count, assume; ne (n ’ en) faire ni une ni deux - long not to reflect, at once to make the decision, not long thinking; a l ’ esprit tendu a qch - strenuously to think over what.

2. Purposeful process of knowledge "cogito" (to learn, learn that-l. Etc.): demasquer (demonter, devoiler) les batteries de qn - to open whose-l. Plans, intentions; vider une affaire - to find out business; dire (tirer) la bonne aventure - to predict the future.

3. Character and possibility of successful process of knowledge (to understand, understand what. Etc.): ne comprendre (n ’ entendre) ni A ni B - to understand nothing; travailler du couvercle - to cerebrate, think.

4. Result of knowledge - "knowledge". Conviction in the validity of knowledge - "belief" (the nobility to trust in what.): connaitre (savoir) qch de (depuis) A jusqu’a Z - the nobility that-l. From and to I (from the beginning up to the end); ne connaitre ni d’Adam ni d'Eve - not to know at all whom-l.; croire a qch comme article de foi - blindly to trust that-l., in what.

5. A choice as result of mental activity (to dare, make a choice to make the decision): prendre sous son bonnet - to solve under own discretion; consulter son bonnet de nuit (son chevet, son oreiller) - to postpone the decision for morning; fondre la cloche - to make the unexpected decision.

6. An estimation, opinion on the person, its line of action, and also the phenomena of the objective validity, made through a prism of mental qualities (the fool - a wise man; clever - silly; recklessly; truly; truly; etc.): abime (puits) de science - a well of wisdom; ane bate (renforce) - the arrant fool; couper l ’ arbre pour avoir le fruit - to arrive unreasonably; aller sans baton - to arrive thoughtlessly; a sot auteur, sot admirateur - the fool of the fool praises.

7. Preservation and reproduction of knowledge - "memory" (to remember - to forget etc.): Avoir un blanc - suddenly to forget that-l.; rien ne vieillit plus vite qu’un bienfait - nothing is forgotten so quickly, as kind business; fourre-toi ga bien dans le ciboulot - cut (it) to itself on a nose.

8. Transfer of knowledge (to learn whom-l., to explain that-l. Etc.): apprendre a vivre - to learn to mind to reason, worldly wisdom; n ’ avoir rien appris, (et) rien oublie - to forget and to learn nothing to nothing (about dynasty Burbonov); eclairer sur la couleur - to explain that to what; faire comme saint Jean qui donnait le bapteme sans l ’ avoir regu - to learn others to volume that you do not know.

9. The control of knowledge (to check up, examine whom-l. Etc.): c’est dans l ’ adversite qu ’ on connait les amis - friends are learnt in a trouble.

10. Concealment of knowledge, trues: с’est un bateau is a cheating; donner la (une) baie a (repaitre de baie a) - to deceive, inflate; mettre un bandeau a qn - to deceive, mislead; faire l’ane pour avoir du bran (du son) - to make a fool of whom-l., to spend whom-l., having pretended to be the little fool.

11. A result mental and mentally-practical activities,

Embodiment of knowledge in practical activities (to think up that-l., to guess what., to guess that-l., to think, write that-l., to compose that-l. Etc.): faire le coup - to carry out the plan; les fous inventent les modes, et les sages les suivent - fools think out a fashion, and clever to it follow.

As we see, phraseological units of the French language differ degree of the structural completeness and the figurative (metaphoric) maintenance. Phraseological units, expressing positive or negative konnotatsiju, carry out also stylistic function which is shown in their accessory to certain level of language and in ekspressivno - emotional colouring. Work on the given theme has allowed us, in a certain measure, to reveal national vision by carriers of the French language and the French culture of intellectual activity of the person and to analyse componental structure of the phraseological units reflecting given concept.

What behaviour «the person kognitivnogo»? Here language also avoids a direct nomination. Simuljakrami (reprezentativami) «Homme» become somatizmy, a metaphor, metonimija, generalizovannye forms (see above).

Nuclear somatic elements, metonimicheski replacing the semantic figure, will be transferred by lexemes «tete» and «langue».

In the phraseological thesaurus of any language the aspiration to metaphorical generalisation, giperbolizatsii for strengthening performativnogo effect of the judgement erected in a rank of true is observed.

However an indispensable condition of such transformation is elimination of the direct semantic subject. Sometimes there is a substitution of the semantic subject of a phraseological unit or paremii its object. More often, it is connected with a variety slotov one categories, for example, "love", "native land", "intelligence", "soul". Such categories etnomarkirovany also differ both quantity slotov, and their filling. However for all of them exists universal presuppozitsija realities, "ekzistentsialnosti": « When speak about Russia, the statement turns to ascertaining — «mind Russia not to understand","wanted as better, it has turned out as always»: speaking about Russia should agree in advance that anything not banal about the subject he will not tell. The statement about Russia states nothing, but sense of conversation not that Russia is unpredictable, and that we know it. Russia can be repeated only, therefore about Russia it is impossible to be silent: sense of Russia is the reality... »[Marylin 2006, 5].

Therefore such a priori the given categories and their components sloty lay down in a basis of "subjectless" phraseology. And what for the person there can be more given, than its body?

And we can easily reveal semanticheski aksiologichesky character of the phraseology directed on interactive object. Staticizing in the certificate of the statement the subject and the addressee, we can reveal intentsionalnost this or that phraseological statement or expression.

As is known, in an estimation there are three positions of principle: «+/-/0». And, the category otsenochnosti ambivalentna, and that in one situation seems positive, in another gets either negative, or a neutral shade [Arutyunov 1984; Volf 1985]. Subjectivity correlates with the two first estimations (positive or negative). The third variant gives us "objective" impersonal judgement, common truth, "top wasps".

There is an opinion, that «.frazeologizmy - somatizmy Russian most often use five components: a head, an eye, heart, a hand, a foot and seven — French: tete, oeil, coeur, main, bras, pied, jambe» [Gorodetsky 2007, 5]. Abundantly clear, that the divergence in quantity here speaks nominative asymmetry: a hand - main / bras and a foot - pied / jambe. Thus the list far is not closed.

Let's consider somatizmy, entering into phraseological units of intellectual activity. We will allocate the subject of a direct nomination and the metaphorical subject.

The person - the carrier of knowledge is designated in a phraseological combination antroponimom Un homme (m), femme (f) + prep. de + somatizm tete: un homme (une femme) de tete - the clever person. Feature of the given phraseological combination is the direct nomination of the person-protagonista. It is necessary to tell, that in a phraseological unit a lexeme the head with pretexts carries out determinative function. This determinative expresses a positive intelligence quotient of the subject (de tete).

So that "nominovat" the person - the carrier of knowledge, somatizm should become a metaphorical determinative. As wrote M.Lakoff and M.Johnson, «a metaphor and metonimija are different kinds of processes. The metaphor is first of all a way of comprehension of one thing in terms another, and thus its basic function consists in understanding maintenance. On the other hand, metonimii function is inherent basically referentsialnaja, i.e. She allows one essence to replace another. But metonimija is not only referentsialnyj reception. The part choice defines, on what party of the whole the attention is focused. When we say, that lucid minds are necessary for the project, we use« lucid minds »for a designation« clever people ». Essentially not that we use a part (head) for a designation of whole (person), and that we choose the separate characteristic of the person, namely mind which associates with a head» [Lakoff 2008, 62].

As has shown research, the metaphorical indirect nomination is carried out by 5 types of phraseological units - combinations:

1). «somatizm tete + an adjective»;

2). «somatizm tete + prep. de + a noun»;

3). «somatizm tete + prep. And + a noun»;

4). «somatizm tete + somatizm coeur»;

5). «somatizm tete in mn.ch. + prep. + a substance, a place, etc.».

1. Phraseological units - combinations «somatizm + an adjective»

Nominate the person-carrier of knowledge with positive and a negative side. Aksiologija it is reached thanks to semantics of determinants - adektivov, combined with frazeoleksemoj. Within the limits of structure of a phraseological combination adektivy take out an estimation somatizmu and by that serve as a marker designating intellectual level of the subject. In phraseological combinations of the given type the estimation of qualities which underlie the internal form of phraseological units considered frazeosemanticheskogo a field is expressed.

Aksiologija, resulting reconsideration

Adjectives, it is reached by forming of the associative communications formed between somatizmom and semantics of adjectives which express psychological properties of the person:

1). General characteristics:

The positive: tete posee or rassise - the reasonable person;

6) the negative: tete ecervelee - the reckless person;

2). Quality mysledejatelnosti: tete bien ordonnee - sensible, methodical mind;

3). Physical properties with metaphorical harakterizatsiej:

Its hardness: tete dure (firm) - the stupid, undeveloped person;

Weight: tete legere - a thoughtless head;

Forces: forte tete - the person with a head, the clear head.

Adjectives with descriptive value, having, naturally, aksiologicheskuju a component, transfer brighter national cultural code, sootnosimyj with an image:

1). Made actions:

Movement without the purpose: tete vagabonde (from vagabonder - to wander) - a useless head;

Destructive actions: tete felee (tresnutyj) - the abnormal person;

Mechanistic, poor quality: tete mal timbree - the abnormal person;

2). Natural phenomena (metaphor): tete eventee (windy, thoughtless - from vent - a wind) - the confused, reckless person, vertoprah;

3). Object forms: tete carree (dosl. A square head) - a numskull.

Adjacent with somatizmom a lexeme head cervelle f), esprit (etc.

Are combined with the adjectives specifying on:

1). The form, the blank volume, emptiness: la cervelle creuse (the hollow

Brain) - a brainless head; l’esprit creux - an empty head, the empty person; la tete a l ’ envers - the grown turbid reason;

2). Light (metaphor): esprit eclaire - the light, educated mind, a lucid mind.

Phraseological combination un panier perce - the head full of holes represents a dual metaphor of the subject.

The dual metaphor, in our opinion, - a nomination in which result the subject is replaced not somatizmom, and the metaphorical form which in turn designates the person - the carrier of knowledge and gives the characteristic to its mental faculties: a basket in value the head and an adjective full of holes express the negative relation to the subject.

II. Somatizm tete + prep. de + a noun. It is necessary to notice, that in the given type of phraseological word-combinations determination of the subject is reached analytically: de + a noun.

In phraseological word-combinations at which is present hidden komparativnost, besides a code somatizma following cultural codes are presented:

1). A material - a tree: tete de bois - the stupid person;

2). Birds (head): tete de linotte (a head konopljanki) - the confused, reckless person;

3). Animals (head) - the mule, a donkey, a bull: tete de mule (de mulet, d’ane, de boeuf) - the stupid person;

4). Artefacts: tete de girouette - the confused, reckless person;

5). A foodstuff: vegetables, fruit, meat products (choux - cabbage, lard - fat): tete de choux - a silly head, bad bashka; tete de lard - bad bashka.

As we see, in the French language consciousness low intellectual level of the subject associates with the signs inherent in representatives of fauna, to birds, natural phenomena, a foodstuff, man-made subjects, a material, its quality etc.

III. Somatizm tete + prep. And + a noun. Phraseological combinations of the given type bear a negative categorical estimation to intellectual level of the subject. The pretext and in a combination with substantivom expresses mission of the subject which consists in heavy work (work for the fool) and at which in a head only a wind:

1). Features of work (corvee, heavy work, the dress, even execution): tete and corvees - the fool;

2). Natural phenomena (open air): tete and l ’ event - the confused, reckless person;

IV. Somatizm tete + somatizm coeur. In French lingvokulturnoj traditions mind is in opposition to heart. This opposition expresses a phraseological unit mauvaise tete et bon coeur (dosl. A bad head, but good heart) - the person reckless, but good-natured; Le c&ur a ses raison que la raison ne connaitpas etc.

V. Somatizm tete in mn.ch. + prep. + a place. For example: Deux tetes dans un bonnet (sous le meme chapeau) - two heads in one cap, in one hat - adherents. The plural subject in structure of a phraseological combination underlines unity of sights, opinions, edinomyslie subjects - protagonistov.

Functional feature of the given estimated phraseological units is metaphorical representation of the subject of 2nd and 3rd person in a role estimated on metaphorical parametres of their intellectual activity.

In the French verbal consciousness the head corresponds with imagination. For example: Sa tete est un (vrai) brasier - at it ardent imagination. Somatizm tete, carrying out in the offer subject function, metonimicheski character of mental processes marks not only the person, but also.

In paremijah, giving big ethnic markirovannost to an estimation of intellectual sphere of the person, interdependence is marked

Intellectual level of the person with its physiological and anthropological features, with training prospects etc.:

1). Mental faculties - physiological features of the carrier of knowledge: Tete de fou ne blanchit (jamais) pas - fools do not grow grey;

2). Mental faculties - quality of character: Ce qu ’ il a la tete il ne l’apas auxpieds (au talon) - if he something will hammer to itself(himself) into the head, it from it does not refuse;

3). The size of a head and mental faculties: Grosse tete, peu de sens - the big head yet does not mean the big mind, the figure, yes the silly woman is great. In a phraseological unit the size of a receptacle of mind and quality of the maintenance are opposed. In the French language there is a synonymous phraseological unit to the expression En resulted above petite tete git grand sens (dosl. In a small head the big sense) - small but precious contains;

4) quality of mental faculties - success: Qui a bonne tete ne manque pas de chapeau - who has a head on shoulders, that will not be gone;

5) quantity of goals, minds - knowledge, opinions: Autant de fetes, autant d’avis (d ’ opinions, de sentiments) (vingt tetes, vingt avis) - How many goals, are so much minds;

6) low mental faculties - consequences for the owner: Quand on n ’ a pas de tete, il faut avoir des jambes - the bad head does not give to feet of rest;

7) mental faculties - training possibility: A laver la tete d’un ane (d’un Maure, d’un More) on perd (son temps) sa lessive - the fool to learn, that dead to treat.

Thus, as has shown the analysis French FE, the subject - the carrier of knowledge receives a straight line (homme/femme) and more often an indirect nomination in the phraseological combinations incorporating a lexeme tete, etc. less often

However, in our opinion, even more important category expressing the subject kognitivnogo, the category «langue - language» as in it intellectual and speech activity of the person is combined is. N.D.Arutyunov writes: «Language is some kind of analogue of the person. As well as the person, it unites a matter and spirit. It is perceived simultaneously by mind and sense organs. This dualism of language repeating dual human nature, is reflected almost in all its definitions» [Arutyunov 2000, 7]. On example FSP «Speech activity» we also mark all stages

Interactions I speaking (), I intellectual () and I protagonista (). And, we will try to trace, on the one hand, their degree eksplitsitnosti, and with another - we will break them into three aksiologicheskie groups:

(I) «Encouragement of speech activity»,

(II) «Prohibition of speech activity» and

(III) «Other characteristics of speech activity».

We will designate the first characteristic the Latin letters, the second — figures: ne vous (en) deplaise! razg. Not in insult to you be told (I-); je t’en dirai bien d’autres - I to you yet that will tell (I-); vous m’en direz tant! You will tell! (11-A+V);. je m’entends bien (razg.) - I perfectly understand, that I speak (I-A+V); J’appelle un chat un chat et Rolet un fripon - words Bualo about the public prosecutor of parliament Role - the known bribe taker (III-A+V);. je vous en defie I warrant, that you will not make it (III - А+В); aussitot dit, aussitot fait - no sooner said than done (III-) etc. Last example with elimination of the subject and obektivizatsiej a phraseological unit is most presented in the French phraseological thesaurus.

Thus, in phraseological units and paremijah it is shown kognitivnyj and pragmatical (the subject-subject, interaktsionalnyj) levels of formation of a category «the language subject».

<< | >>
Âű ňŕęćĺ ěîćĺňĺ íŕéňč číňĺđĺńóţůóţ číôîđěŕöčţ â íŕó÷íîě ďîčńęîâčęĺ Otvety.Online. Âîńďîëüçóéňĺńü ôîđěîé ďîčńęŕ:

More on topic 5.3. Phraseological means of expression of a category «the language subject»: the person and it simuljakry:

  1. Language means of expression of a category of intensity
  2. § 1.1 Category of intensity in modern linguistics and language means of its expression
  3. 1.3. Semantics of an emotional estimation and means of its expression in idiostile the language person
  4. a language modality and a conglomerate of means of its expression
  5. 3.6. Ways and means of expression of a category of space in toponymy
  7. 1.2. The Semiotiko-functional method of research of a language category of the subject
  10. §1. A role of a category of an estimation in formation idiostilja the language person
  11. SELEZNEV Olga Nikolaevna. DIFFERENTIATION of MEANS of EXPRESSION of FUTURE TIME In MODERN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Tver - 2015, 2015
  12. the Reduction of the subject in semantic structure of a phraseological unit
  13. lexical and stylistic means of expression of an author's modality in information texts. An ironical modality and its means reprezentatsii in the business media text.
  14. 1.2. The professional language person as the subject of a professional discourse
  15. phraseological units with names of plants as a subject of linguistic research in Russian and Vietnamese linguistics
  16. Bezekvivalentnaja and nepolnoekvivalentnaja the lexicon reflecting a national-cultural originality of Russian and Vietnamese phraseological units with names of plants, in practice of teaching of a foreign language
  17. 1.4 Phraseological unit as metaphorical means of awakening of a reflexion
  18. 4.2. Metonimichesky expression of the semantic subject