the Reasons of a reduction of the semantic subject

So, basic communicative unit is the offer - the statement which is realised by means of words. However words — it is not simple offer pieces as the offer is whole, not reduced to the sum of its parts [Benvenist 1974, 133].

In this discrepancy, apparently, feature of language communications also is covered. All maintenance of thought concentrated in the offer, not always corresponds to language elements, its components. Thanks to it in the course of language communications the speaking has often an opportunity replacements in a sentence structure of some language element any other, functionally identical element, capable to transfer the same information in the given contextually-situational conditions. nevyrazhennost in syntactic level of the offer of some elements of a situation reflects in language economy of speech efforts [Haroche 1984; 1991; Martinet 1985; Zribi - Hertz 1985]. “ Really, why languages should be so perverted and uneconomical? Why they should burden the obvious categories speaking by hundreds deprived of any semantic importance? ”[Bulygin 1982, 10]. Two existing opposite tendencies: the first — to economy of syntactic units and the second — to a variety of expressive transmission media of some sense — promote dialectic development of languages. Discrepancy between elements of semantic and syntactic structures of communicative unit causes implitsitnost its elements. Implikativnoe the designation of the semantic components which are not finding direct conformity in respect of their expression in separately taken offer, reveals here specificity of the indirect, transformed reflexion of events as language reflects the world only indirectly [Tarasova 1992, 86-94; Наrnish 1977]. Language reflects kategorializatsiju the world of speaking collective [Wierzbicka 1980, 49-50].

As it has been specified above, function first of all is a transposition of forms, the subordinate intentsionalnosti speaking. Having defined nuclear position of personal pronouns in expression personalnosti in relation to denotativno-nominative ways of expression of the semantic subject in the semasiological plan (from the form to function), it is necessary to follow a dominant semasiological antropotsentricheskogo the approach to research of the semantic subject. As the main tendency of an anthropological variation the reduction of the semantic subject, i.e. replacement semanticheski full names on reduced and semanticheski more sinkretichnye pronominal (dejkticheskie) forms acts.

Transformation, in particular reduction, is one of

The pragmatical strategy extended in the French language speaking, connected with certain conditions of the speech certificate, a speech context and the communicative purposes.

The use speaking offers with the reduced

The semantic subject depends, as a rule, on two principal causes: definiteness (popularity) or uncertainty (uncertainty) of the subject of action [Rylov 2006, 15-33].

In situations of the second type uncertainty of the subject is expressed, i.e. the concrete semantic subject is unknown, unevident speaking owing to what it cannot be named or expressed precisely [SHeljakin 1991].

For example:

(2) «Des pas dans l ’ escalier. Non pas les pas de Gustave, elle les reconnaissait entre tous. Pourtant une main qui frappe a sa porte: Qui est-ce?

Elle ouvre et en meme temps elle devine dans la penombre que c’est un enfant.

— Gar5on de course du Ruhl »(P. Vialar.« Pas de temps pour mourir, p.

121 »);

(3) «La porte de la salle d’ecoute avait ete poussee avec violence et quelqu'un entrait dans les couloirs. Elle se precipita hors de la piece et eut tout juste le temps d’apercevoir une silhouette et de reconnaitre Irkvine» (P. Boulle. «Le Coeur et la Galaxie», p. 119).

Thus the primary function is carried out by an indefinite article, and the subject is expressed by the nouns close to dejksisu («any steps are heard on a ladder»; «the hand knocks» ^ "there"). Not casually K.Bjuler connected spatial dejksis and an index sign with pertseptsiej and lexicon corresponding to it, as deskriptivno-nominative (des pas; une main; une silhouette), and dejkticheski-pronominal (quelqu'un). He wrote that we can learn the person on a voice, not seeing it, and it is obvious dejkticheskoe property fonatsii (phonetics on Bjuleru) [Bjuler 2000; see tzh. Moiseyev 1999; 2005; Potapov 2003; 2006].

One more reason of a reduction of the subject is connected with expression of insignificance of the subject of action for the listening:

. Speaking the semantic subject as it is known listening of a context or a situation [Ruzhichka 1988] is not concretised:

(4) «— Mais pourquoi n'avez-vous pas fait votre redaction?

— On a tue le cochon hier.

—Je n’en ai pas entendu parler, observa le maitre. Il me semble qu’on tue bien souvent des cochons chez vous »(M. Ayme.« La Retraite de Russie », p. 31).

And, in this example we can observe a homonymy of the French pronoun on (see the Scheme 3): the first on = nous (we, at us); the second - on = vous.

(5) «L’entrevue eut lieu dans le petit salon et dura pres de deux heures; puis Simon fila de son cote, sans prendre conge de moi» (F. Mauriac. «Un adolescent d’autrefois», p. 371).

Here leksikalizovavsheesja spatial dejkticheskoe de son cote assumes referentsialnoe knowledge of the listener, where this most «to itself».

Sometimes listening anaforicheski restores value (referentsiju) the reduced subject (anaforichesky dejksis):

(6) «Le lendemain, je me suis aper5u que je n’avais plus la pipe en quelque sorte commemorative que m’avaient donnee mes confreres liegeois. J ’ en ai parle an I’un d’eux qui a tout de suite ouvert une enquete. On a retrouve la pipe. C’etait le fils de mon hotesse de la veille qui se l’etait appropriee et qui l’avait cachee dans sa chambre» (G. Simenon. «Lettre a ma mere», p. 27).

. Offers with the reduced subject are used at expression of various ekspressivno-stylistic and modal shades. Similar offers transfer konnotatsiju speaking concerning the real figure:

(7) «Les families bourgeoises c’est connu, ga contrarie toujours les artistes» (N. Calef. «Ascenseur pour l’echafaud», p. 37).

In this example are syncretic manner combined anaforicheskaja and pejorativnaja functions dejkticheskogo ga (= these, as is known...).

. Speaking the subject of action as insignificant for itself and listening considers unnecessary to concretise, the semantic subject is not called, it is eliminated, since for speaking important to transfer the information on its activity, to describe action and elements, with it connected. Action for kommunikantov is in communicative (informative) focus of the statement:

(8) «II fut decide que la vente de la collection Riviere aurait lieu en decembre» (M. Rheims. «Le cheval d’argent», p. 61);

(9) «Nous partons... Cela s’est decide tout d’un coup» (Alain-Fournier. «Le grand Meaulnes», p. 97);

(10) «II entend chanter dans les rues une chansonnette a la mode (G. Duhamel». «Vue de la Terre promise», p. 226);

(11) «La poussiere d’or, les claquements de fouet, les grelots, un air de tyrolienne montaient a travers les jalousies fermees» (F. Mauriac. «Le noeud de viperes», p. 114).

Let's notice, that examples (8) - (10) differ from an example (11) that in them the semantic reduction of the subject-figure is accompanied by transformation passivizatsii whereas in last example, in the presence of the formal leksiko-syntactic subjects taking of a position of a subject, pertseptivnyj the semantic subject is eliminated from superficial structure, owing to its popularity to the reader from a context. As a result it turns out stilisticheski the marked description of a situation through approaching to subjective dejksisu nouns (indeksalno - ikonicheskie signs on C.Pirsu) («a gold dust, shchelkane a switch. Got through the closed jalousie»).

. Speaking strategy concerning a discussed subject of speech (object) is used vaguely-generalizirujushchaja, that referentsialnyj the subject formally reduces, underlining it intensional and representing it with different degree of generalisation. For example:

(12) «Vous me demandez comment se fait un roman» (A. Maurois «Lettres a l’inconnue», p. 75). — ‘ passivizatsija ’ + ‘ generalisation ’;

(13) «Un bijou se perd, il est vrai, aussi aisement, qu’une cicatrice se gagne» (H. Bazin. «Le bureau des mariages», p. 154). — the same;

(14) «Je te donnerai aussi un pour une premiere de chez Bechoff - David, une

ancienne camarade qui n'a pas reussi. Ta garde-robe va changer. Qui ne risque rien n’a rien »(Sempe-Goscinny.« Joachim a des ennuis », p. 24-25). - generalisation +

frazeologizatsija (a speech stereotype).

In an example (14) speaking as argument uses klishirovannuju a saying (phraseological unit) in which obobshchennost uncertain subject Qui it is as much as possible ennobled in a rank, than klishirovannaja the phrase is finished to "true" level that is peculiar to the majority of phraseological units of such type.

(15) «—Si tu ne l’emploies pas tout de suite, le billet, tu peux me le confier, Laurent. On trouve de bons, de tres bons placements, quand on a de l’experience» (G. Duhamel. «Vue de la Terre promise», p. 176). - obobshchennolichnoe; argumentativnoe;

(16) «Liege m’avait organise un accueil inattendu, fait de receptions officielles de dejeuners et de diners non moins officiels dans les palais de la ville» (G. Simenon. «Lettre a ma mere», p. 26). - generalising metonimija (a city = its inhabitants);

(17) «— Cecile? Cecile? Qui donc edt pu prevoir une chose pareille» (G. Duhamel. «Vue de la Terre promise», p. 283). — subject generalisation at a rhetorical question.

The generalised subject can be transformed in «patsiensa - benefitsianta» at the expense of the form inherent in the French language «vozvratnokauzativnogo a passive» (se faire faire qch) [Grevisse 1980].

Not losing function kauzatsii the actions, inherent in the figure, the subject is combined with object for the account passivizatsii vozvratno-kauzativnoj designs:

(18) «M. Bordas decrocha son impermeable. Sa femme le suivit dans la chambre: il n’allait pas courir sur les routes la nuit, avec cette folle? Il se ferait montrer du doigt. Mais il la rabroua» (F. Mauriac. «Le sagouin», p. 261).

Proceeding from the above-stated reasons inducing speaking to transform the semantic subject, we will notice, that lingvorechevoj to strategy (process) reviewers are subject to this: 1) the uncertain; 2)

The defined; 3) defined-generalised or 4) the uncertain - generalised. Thus, as reviewers of the reduced subject act:

. The subject the uncertain individual.

(19) «Un bruit confus s’entendit. Naoh rampa dans l’herbe haute (J-H. Rosny.« La guerre du feu », p. 97);

(20) «Des branches bruirent; il surgit une creature souple et puissante. Personne n’aurait pu dire si elle etait survenue a quatre pattes comme les betes velues et les reptiles ou a deux pattes comme les oiseaux et les hommes». (J.-H. Rosny. «La guerre du feu», p. 240).

V.V. Vinogradov concerning the similar phenomenon in Russian spoke: “Here it is as though searched, though and not always there is a manufacturer of action, the person. It is uncertainty not generalisations, and ignorance” [Vinogradov 1947, 462]. Further this "ignorance" can be resolved, and then a name of semantic "subject", the real figure is taken by right to it by a belonging place in the offer co-ordinated by a predicate.

. The uncertain figure in collective value.

(21) «— Comment, tu sais? a? On t’a melee a ces histoires? Elle inclina la tete gravement. — C’est grand-mere et tante Alicia» (S.G. Colette. «Gigi», p. 38);

(21) «II at an une bonne femme qui an ete denoncee par un voyageur. On l’a fouillee: elle etait veritablement empaquetee dans la dentelle» (A. Maurois. «Dentelle de Bruxelles», p. 26).

. Defined aktsionalnyj the subject (actant).

(22) «Qui parle d’insulter personne? Je dis ma pensee tout net, mais je ne veux pas vous blesser» (G. Duhamel. «Vue de la Terre promise», p. 227). - «Qui parle = Pas moi» = «Who has told?»;

23) Une gifle claqua. “Monte a ta chambre. Que je ne te voie plus jusqu’au diner” (F. Mauriac. «Le sagouin», p. 227);

(24) «Justement il a cru entendre des pas, les pas se rapprochent, puis s’eloignent. Et la raie de jour qui etait sous sa porte a disparu. C’est minuit; on vient d’eteindre le gaz, le dernier domestique est parti et il faudra rester toute la nuit a souffrir sans remede» (M. Rheims. «Permis d’exhumer», p. 30).

How we see, the semantic subject is present at a proposition implitsitno or eksplitsitno, but at syntactic, linear level it is expressed, besides aktsionalnyh nouns, pronouns “on”, “qui”, “? a”, “quelqu’un”, etc. Implitsitnyj the semantic subject is verbally reduced up to 0th form though semantics of a predicate continues to exist as interpretanta the offer-sign. Grammatical it corresponds to a proven fact, that the syntactic category of the person is wider than a morphological category [Ilija 1978; Benveniste 1966]. The semantic category rises over morphological and syntactic, expressly or by implication designating the subject. Frequent nevyrazhennost the semantic subject in offers with aktsionalnym the subject, in our opinion, semanticheski it is significant, as in communicative focus there are the actions produced by it directed on objects (the subject-objective of the relation). The form implitsitnogo the semantic subject is always found out as «a subject position» or "point of view" [Eko 2007].

If in the French impersonal offers [Pieltain 1966] nevyrazhennost the subject outside of will speaking, a reduction of the semantic subject in personal offers — one of ways of representation of the subject, lingvorechevaja the strategy, at the disposal speaking [Ducrot 1982] which leans against contextual or situational presumptions [Alisova 1969; Bondarko 1991; 1995; popova 1974; Stevenson 1985; Brown 1979; Coquet 1983; Fauconnier 1984, 1999; Grice 1979; Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1986; Sperber 1989, etc.].

Thus, use of designs with indeksalno the expressed or formally reduced semantic subject depends on a choice speaking. However sometimes the subject is compelled to use leksikosemanticheskie means which rather approximately specify in the real figure (on, 5a, qui) [Gurevich 1983] that is defined leksikosintaksicheskoj by norm and usage of speech.

J.D.Apresjan has noted a certain likelihood law in the mechanism of formation of the centre and periphery of this or that leksikogrammaticheskogo a class (field): « ... The lexical units which are in the centre of given system or subsystems and consequently, as a rule, more common, find out in comparison with peripheral units smaller specificity (big freedom) on all lingvisticheski sushche - stvennym to parametres. In particular, they () are less specific semanticheski, () stilisticheski are not marked, () prosodicheski and are communicatively neutral, () have fuller paradigm, () have wider set of syntactic designs, () have wider compatibility. In process of advancement from the centre of any language system or a subsystem to its periphery common use of units entering into it falls and simultaneously their semantic specificity accrues, and more often at them modal components of value develop or amplify. Semantic specialisation of language units in turn generates their morphological, syntactic, communicatively-prosodicheskuju and sochetaemostnuju specialisation, i.e. Causes growth of number of the restrictions imposed on their realisation in texts. Natural end of such evolution is change of the nature of language unit, i.e. Its transformation into other, usually semioffice or office part of speech — a particle, a pretext, the union, etc. »[Apresjan 2004, 20-21].

As a result of the aforesaid it is possible to allocate objective and subjective factors of the use of designs with transformation of the semantic subject [Kolshansky 1975]. Only speech situation or a context and intentsionalnost speaking [Alfyorov 2007] define degree of objectivity or subjectivity in expression of the semantic 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 the Reasons of a reduction of the semantic subject:

  1. the Reduction of the subject in semantic structure of a phraseological unit
  2. 2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject
  3. 3.1.3. A reduction of the semantic subject a pronoun“qui”
  4. 2.2. A reduction of the semantic subject as display of functional dynamics in language
  5. the Reasons of reduction of operations.
  6. 3.3. A reduction of the subject and an offer and text actual division
  7. 3.2. A reduction of the subject in interrogative designs of the French language
  8. 3.2.1. A reduction of the subject a pronoun “qui” in the questions which are carrying out secondary function
  9. 4.1.2. Latentnost the semantic subject in reflexive-passive designs
  10. 4.2. Metonimichesky expression of the semantic subject
  11. Implitsitnost the semantic subject in impersonal designs
  12. 4.2.3. Implitsitnost the semantic subject in polipropozitsionalnom the offer
  13. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun “on"
  14. the CHAPTER III. The LEXICO-SEMANTIC FIELD of MEANS RE DUKTSII of the SUBJECT IN the FRENCH LANGUAGE
  15. 4.2. Elimination of the semantic subject by means of nominalizatsii
  16. 4.1.1. Eliminatsija the semantic subject in passive designs
  17. the CHAPTER IV. IMPLITSITNYE FORMS of the SEMANTIC SUBJECT
  18. 4.2.1. Latentnost the semantic subject in structures with objective nominalizatsiej
  19. 4.1.3. nevyrazhennost the semantic subject in vozvratnokauzativnyh designs
  20. Expression of the reduced semantic subject by a pronoun “quelqu’un"