The status of each language category is determined by its place among the other categories.
By nature, all language categories can be:
Ontological– categories of objective reality (category of number)
Anthropocentric– categories born in the human mind (categories of assessment)
Relational– categories expressed in language structure, for the organization of speech (category of case)
There are oppositions:
Regarding relations between members of the opposition:
- equipole (equal pole)
A: :B: :C: :D
R.p. ending and B
D.p. ending e C
- private(two forms only)
Ex: dog - dog s
- gradual(degrees of comparison)
Ex: æ - α: - /\
By the number of members within the opposition:
Ternary (three) – gender, time, person
Polycomponent (more than three components) – case.
39 Types of grammatical categories. Structure and types of relations between members of grammatical categories (only about oppositions)
A grammatical category is a set of homogeneous grammatical meanings, represented by rows opposed to each other grammatical forms. The grammatical category forms the core of the grammatical structure of a language. A grammatical category has a generalized meaning. Grammatical categories are in close interaction with each other and tend to interpenetrate (for example, the category of person connects verbs and pronouns, the category of aspect is closely related to the category of time), and this interaction is observed not only within one part of speech (the category of person connects name and verb)
Morphological– expressed by lexical-grammatical classes of words ( significant parts speech) – categories of type, voice, tense, number. Among these categories, inflectional and classification categories are distinguished.
Inflectional– categories, the members of which are represented by forms of the same word within its paradigm (in Russian, the category of case in a name or the category of person in a verb)
Classification- these are categories whose members cannot be represented by forms of the same word, i.e. these are categories that are internal to a word and do not depend on its use in a sentence (animate/inanimate nouns)
Syntactic- these are categories that belong primarily to syntactic units of language (the category of predicativity belongs to the syntactic unit - the sentence), but they can also be expressed by units belonging to other linguistic levels (word and form that participate in the organization of the predicative basis of the sentence)
In “Prolegomena to any future metaphysics...” Kant outlines two ways to study categories. The first one is aimed at finding and systematizing actually existing in everyday language, concepts (words) that are constantly encountered in all experimental knowledge.
The second is to construct, on the basis of previously developed rules, a complete speculative scheme of rational concepts, independent of either the historical conditions of human life or the content of the material being processed.
Kant himself chooses the second path, which ultimately leads to the cold heights of Hegel's Absolute Spirit. But his main idea is that the structures of being depend, even on the universal, but still human definitions, turned out to be more fruitful precisely on the first path. This path led to the development linguistic interpretation categories, which was stimulated by the research of Wilhelm Humboldt.
As has already been shown, the main function of categories is to introduce of a certain order into some undivided or unorganized integrity. This order, one way or another, is expressed (or displayed) in language.
The lexical composition of a language and the totality of categories basically coincide, and every word, insofar as it generalizes, acts as category for a certain set of things. Thanks to this coincidence, even a person completely unaware of the existence theoretical schemes categorical analysis or synthesis, “sees” the world as ordered in a certain way only because he uses his native language to describe it.
Language, just like categories, is not derived by each individual directly from his individual experience. Language has a pre-experimental (a priori) nature. Each individual receives it as the legacy of a long series of past generations. But like any inheritance, language, on the one hand, enriches, and on the other hand, binds a person before and independently of him established standards and rules. Being, in relation to the knowable, subjective, the norms and rules of language, in relation to the knower, are objective.
But if thinking can still be imagined as absolutely pure (empty) thinking (Hegel and Husserl demonstrate this perfectly), then speech is unthinkable as absolutely “pure speech”, devoid of any specific content. Any conversation is a conversation about something. This “something” is the subject of speech, isolated and recorded in the word. Therefore, in words, as lexical units of language, both the primary division of being and the primary synthesis of sensory impressions already occur.
The history of language does not have a clearly defined beginning. No matter how far our research goes back into the depths of centuries, wherever we find people, we find them already speaking. But it is impossible that in the thinking of people who have words, those initial divisions of being and thought that already exist in language are completely absent. The idea of pure thinking, devoid of any content, working “idling” is an abstraction that grows only on the soil of the Cartesian cogito. Real thinking is never pure “thinking about anything”; it always has an intentional character, i.e. it is always directed at an object, there is always thinking about something specific.
At first glance, it seems that language, as a sign system, is completely neutral in relation to thought, which can be expressed in any arbitrarily chosen sign system: sound, graphic, color, etc. But in this case it turns out that thought arises before language and only expresses itself in it. Thinking is clothed in sounding speech as in a form (more precisely, as in one of possible forms) external expression of already existing own content.
The actual relationship between thinking and language is much more complex. This becomes noticeable when posing the question of their genesis.
Phylogenesis (historical development), as a rule, is reproduced in individual development - ontogenesis. As J. Piaget's research has shown, the formation of categories in the child's mind occurs after he has mastered the corresponding language structures. First, the child masters complex syntactic phrases, such as “because”, “where”, “after”, “despite”, “if”, etc., which serve to express causal, spatial, temporal, conditional - i.e. categorical relationships.
Categories are not derived from subject experience, but are mastered along with language acquisition and are consolidated, first of all, in skills verbal communication. They are realized much later than they begin to be used in language practices. Apparently, the order of the historical development of categories was the same. First, unconscious, unconscious use and only then (much later) comprehension.
There is an organic connection between categories and certain types of very real practical issues, each of which can be formulated with direct use of the corresponding category: Where? - In which space? When? - In which time? etc. But vice versa, each category can be expressed in the form of a question. " What this?" – category essence; "Where when?" - categories space And time; "Which one?, How much?" - quality And quantities; "Why?" - category causes; "For what?" - goals.
We ask being about those aspects, properties and characteristics that constitute the sphere of our vital interests. In the linguistic interpretation of a category, there are lines along which the fragments and relationships that interest us are separated from total mass and appear before us as objects of our close attention. Each category represents a certain perspective in which we see being from a special point of view, and all together they form a kind of functional unity, enshrined in the language system. Everyone who speaks a language is involved in this system, but this does not mean intentionality and full awareness of its use. Man, as Sartre notes, “is a being not so much speaking as being spoken,” and language speaks to man, perhaps to a greater extent than man speaks language.
The culture of each community, like its language, is different from the culture and language of every other community. This gives us every reason to assume that the dividing lines that language draws along the “body” of being can form worlds that have various configurations. This idea was first expressed in the well-known hypothesis about linguistic relativity, called, after its authors, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
“We dismember nature,” says Whorf, “in the direction suggested by our native language. We distinguish certain categories and types in the world of phenomena not at all because they (these categories and types) are self-evident... We dismember the world, organize it into concepts and distribute meanings one way and not another, mainly because we are participants in an agreement that prescribes such systematization... It is impossible to define a phenomenon, thing, object, relationship, etc., based on nature; definition always implies reference to the categories of a particular language."
The essence of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity is that the organization of the world of our experience depends on the categorical structure of a particular language, therefore even the same event can look completely different, depending on the linguistic means used. Indeed, a world in which “the rooster calls the hens with his cry” is different from a world where “the rooster’s crow sets the hens in motion.”
By accepting this hypothesis, we transfer categories from the spheres of Aristotelian being, Kantian pure reason or Hegel's Absolute Idea into the sphere human language and we say goodbye to the hope that inspired these thinkers to discover (or create) an absolutely complete and complete system of categories, which would be uniform and unique “for all times and peoples.” By placing categories in the structures of language, we recognize that they express not being as such or consciousness in general, but the specific life world of a person belonging to a certain culture and historical era.
The idea of connecting categories with the immediate life world a person develops in modern versions phenomenological-existential philosophy. In the traditional sense, categories serve, first of all, to highlight and designate what is most important and significant for a person. But what seems important and significant from the point of view of the whole - a cultural community, for example - can be completely indifferent to an individual, “this” person. For individual person the most important thing may be what directly affects him, concerns specifically and only his individual existence: his fears and hopes, aspirations and complexes, doubts and fears. Thus, in the context of philosophical research, completely unconventional, so-called “existential categories” appear, such as, for example: “death”, “fear”, “abandonment”, “care”, etc.
To summarize our analysis, we can say the following. Regardless of the context of their interpretation, philosophical categories represent extremely broad generic definitions of being. As extremely general genera, they themselves do not have a higher genus standing above them and, therefore, cannot, like concepts, be defined through assignment to a higher genus, with an indication of the specific difference. They are determined not through higher genera, but by establishing relationships with other categories. Concepts that are included in the semantic field of each category are subordinate to it and express certain aspects, shades and specific forms of manifestation. The relationship between categories and concepts can be illustrated as follows.
Every concept has a specific subject area or scope, which includes many subjects covered by this concept. So, for example, the scope of the concept “table” is the set of all possible tables, and the concept “house” is the set of all possible houses. It is clear that, since we mean not only actually existing ones, but also all possible tables or houses, the volume of each of these concepts is an infinite set, so we cannot say which of these concepts has a larger volume and which has a smaller one. However, there are concepts whose relationships are such that they make it possible to unambiguously determine which of the two infinities being compared is greater. So, for example, the infinite number of birches is clearly less than the infinite number of trees, and the infinity of trees is less than the infinity of plants. We get a hierarchical series of concepts, in which each subsequent one includes the previous one as its own component: birch - tree - plant - Live nature- nature - being. This series is completed by a concept that exhausts the possibility of further expansion of the volume. This is a philosophical category, which acts as the broadest generalization, the absolute limit of further expansion of the subject area.
Concepts lower levels communities delineate boundaries subject areas specific sciences, and act as categories of a particular science, since they perform (within the area they limit) the same role of ultimate generalizations. So, for example, if the subject of philosophy is being, That nature- this is a subject of natural science in general, Live nature- subject of biology, plant- botanists and probably some science is being studied at the Forestry Academy, the subject of which is only trees.
So, we have found out that the role of philosophical and scientific categories in knowledge is extremely important. However, there is no single universal system of categories. On different stages historical development, various types of categories or, what is the same, various principles of structuring being and thinking become dominant in practical and spiritual activity. In general, each categorical conceptual system can be likened to a net that we throw into the ocean of existence, in the hope of catching the Goldfish of Absolute Knowledge. But this network each time brings to the surface only what we ourselves capture in the woven cells.
LINGUISTICS
Theory of language. Russian language: history and modernity
Cognitive linguistics. Conceptual analysis of linguistic units
N. N. Kryazhevskikh
This article is devoted to one of the central problems in modern linguistics- language categorization. The proposed semantic-cognitive approach for describing the categories and features of linguistic categorization is relevant in light of modern science and more fully characterizes the phenomenon under study. Within the framework of this theory, the prototypical approach is also considered, namely, the theory of prototypes by E. Roche: the concept of a prototype is given, examples of prototypes are given, and the prototypical structure of categories in language is scientifically proven. The positive and negative aspects of the above theory are also analyzed.
This article is devoted to language categorization as one of the central problems of modern linguistics. The semantic-cognitive approach chosen for analyzing the phenomenon of category and language categorization seems appropriate for this purpose due to its novelty and an ability to provide a more comprehensive description of the above-mentioned research object. The prototypic approach, the theory of prototypes by E. Rosh, to be exact, is described within this approach as well. The definition of the prototype is given and illustrated by examples, the prototypical structure of language categories is scientifically proven. The advantages and disadvantages of the above-mentioned approach are analyzed.
Keywords: linguistics, category, cognitive, semantic-cognitive, categorization, prototype, nucleus, periphery.
© Kryazhevskikh N. N., 2010
such as the denotative-referential theory of categories, the functional-semantic theory of categories, frame semantics of Charles Fillmore and the cognitive (semantic-cognitive) theory of categories.
The fundamental statement put forward by J. Lakoff, one of the founders of cognitive linguistics, is that language uses a common cognitive apparatus. Consequently, linguistic categories must be of the same type as other categories in the conceptual system, and in particular, they must also demonstrate prototypical effects and effects basic level.
Long before J. Lakoff, J. Bruner, an American cognitive psychologist, considered the problems of categorization, culture and values in connection with language, through which culture influences the development of cognition. Referring to the Sapir-Whorf concept of linguistic relativity, he recalls that language can be considered as a system of interrelated categories that reflects and fixes a certain view of the world.
The influence of culture on cognitive activity- perception, conceptual processes, the relationship between culture and language - were also studied by famous American scientists M. Cole and S. Scribner. Thus, they showed that the operations of classification and categorization change under the influence of lifestyle, the taxonomic class plays big role As a basis for classification, when people change their lifestyle, training makes them aware that there are certain classification rules and makes it possible to master them.
According to E. S. Kubryakova, one of the leading domestic researchers in this field,
problematics, “issues of conceptualization and categorization of the world are the key problems of cognitive science.” Today they are basic for cognitive linguistics, in particular, cognitive semantics, recognized as the science of the theory of categorization.
Obviously, one of the existing problems is the relationship between the differences that exist in real world, and differences recorded by means of language. The question of how the infinite variety of reality is covered by a finite number of linguistic forms has become one of the central questions in cognitive linguistics, in particular in prototypical semantics.
In it, the search for an answer is based on two assumptions:
2) categories have a prototypical structure - a certain internal organization, including a core and periphery. The presence of such a core allows categories to be formed not only according to the complete coincidence of properties, but also according to one or another degree of their similarity or similarity. There is no equality between members of categories, but there is a motivated connection with each other, and one can move from core meanings to peripheral ones through inferences. The category arises, exists and develops, focusing on best example(prototype) and establishing a certain hierarchy of features. A situation is also possible when, from one prototype, the development of a category goes in several directions, which gives rise to a certain polysemy and multifunctionality. In all these cases, close to everyday consciousness, relationships of the “family resemblance” type dominate, the idea of which belongs to L. Wittgenstein and was used by linguists in studying the process of categorization.
We can say that the central concepts in describing the categorization process in cognitive linguistics are the concepts of prototype and basic-level object. As you can see, a natural category can unite members with unequal status, that is, not completely repeating features. One of these members, the prototype, has a privileged position, being the best example of its class and, thus, most fully responding to the idea of the essence of association in a particular category. The remaining members of the category are grouped around this prototype.
It was E. Roche who was the first to develop the theory, which later became known as the theory of prototypes and basic-level categories or simply prototype theories. In progress
she subjected the creation of her theory to comprehensive critical analysis classical theory, since according to classical theory, the features that define a category are shared by all its members and therefore have equal status in the category. Rosch's research on prototypical effects has shown asymmetries between category members and asymmetric structures within a category. Since the classical theory did not provide for this, it was necessary to supplement it or propose another theory, which is what E. Roche did.
It was E. Roche in the mid-70s. XX century first introduced the concept of a category prototype. She called cognitive reference points and prototypes those members of a category or subcategory that have a special cognitive status - “being the best example of the category.” That is, a prototype is a member of a category that most fully embodies the features and characteristics characteristic of a given category, and all other members of the category are located on the periphery, closer or further from the core, depending on their similarity to the prototype. For example, a typical bird for Russia, i.e., the prototype of the bird-sparrow category, and on the periphery are the penguin and ostrich, since they are atypical representatives of this category, i.e., they do not fully possess all possible features and characteristics. Center - typical representatives of the category, and the further from the center, the less typical. Accordingly, E. Roche was the first to suggest that categories have some kind of internal structure that reflects the realities of the objective world.
E. Roche's achievements are twofold: she formulated general objections to classical category theory and, together with her colleagues, simultaneously designed reproducible experiments proving the existence of prototype and base-level effects. These experiments show the inadequacy of the classical theory, since the classical theory cannot explain the results obtained. However, prototype effects by themselves do not provide any particular alternative theory of mental representation.
According to R. M. Frumkina, the idea of “inequality” of members of the same category is not without substance. However, she criticizes E. Roche’s approach for the reason that not all objects can be described within the framework of typical and atypical representatives of the category, prototype and periphery. For example, in her opinion, the following statement, according to E. Roche, will look strained: a runny nose is also a disease (but not a typical representative, but on the periphery).
It is important to note that in her later work, E. Roche acknowledged some incompleteness of her prototype theory and abandoned the original hypothesis that prototype effects directly reproduce the structure of categories and that categories have the appearance of prototypes.
J. Lakoff rightly believes that the structure of a category plays a significant role in reasoning processes. In many cases, prototypes function as points of cognitive reference of various types and form the basis for making inferences (Rosch, 1975a; 1981). However, it is necessary to realize that prototype effects are secondary. They are formed as a result of interaction various factors. In the case of a gradational category such as a tall man, the content of which is blurred and has no clear boundaries, prototypical effects may arise from gradation of membership, while in the case of a bird, which is clearly demarcated from others categories, prototype effects are generated by other features of the internal structure of categories.
One of the most interesting confirmations of this hypothesis is contained in the works of L. Barsalow. L. Barsalou studied what he calls “ad hoc categories,” that is, categories that include not generally valid and long-fixed concepts, but accidental categories formed to achieve certain actual goals. Such categories are built on the basis of cognitive models of the object of study. Examples of such categories include things that need to be removed from the house in case of fire; possible birthday gifts; the totality of what needs to be done to receive guests on Sundays, etc. Barsalow notes that such categories are characterized by a prototypical structure - a structure that does not constantly exist, since the category is non-conventional and arises only in certain problematic situations. Barsalou argues that in such cases the essence of the category is determined primarily by goals, and the structure of goals is a function of the cognitive model. This approach was also supported by Murphy and Medin, 1984.
E. Roche has repeatedly emphasized that categories exist in a system and such a system includes opposing categories. She used contrasting categories in an attempt to create a theory of basic level categorization. Basic-level categories, according to her, are characterized by maximum distinctiveness - the perceived similarity between members of the category in them is maximized, at the same time, the perceived similarity between opposing categories is minimized.
She and her colleagues tried to capture what they called cue validity. Signal significance is the conditional probability that an object belongs to a given category, given that it has some property (or "signal"). The best signals are those that indicate with 100% probability the category at this level. For example, the presence of gills on a living creature proves with 100% probability that it is a fish. That is, the significance of this signal for the basic category fish is equal to 1.0, and equal to 0 for other categories.
However, P. F. Murphy proved that if the categorical significance of a signal is determined for objectively existing features, then with its help it will not be possible to identify basic categories. The individual significances of category signals for a higher level will always be greater than or equal to the individual significances of signals for the base category, which will prevent the latter from being clearly identified as the most common for structuring human knowledge. This shows some obvious incompleteness in the signal salience theory.
The categorical salience of a cue may correlate with baseline categorization. However, it cannot identify basic-level categories; they must already be distinguished so that the definition of categorical signal significance can be applied such that such a correlation occurs.
In conclusion, we can say that, according to J. Lakoff, linguistic (language) categories, as well as conceptual categories, demonstrate prototypical effects. They exist at all levels of language, from phonology to morphology and from syntax to vocabulary. The presence of these effects is considered by Lakoff as evidence that linguistic categories have the same character as other conceptual categories. Consequently, language uses general cognitive mechanisms of categorization.
Notes
1. Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things: What the categories of language tell us about thinking. M.: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. P. 86.
3. Cole M., Scribner S. Culture and thinking. M.: Progress, 1977. 262 p.
O. N. Kushnir. Dynamics of linguistic and cultural concepts verbalized by borrowed prefixes.
6. Aaguta O. N. Logic and linguistics. Novosibirsk: Novosib. state univ., 2000. 116 p. URL: http:// www.philology.ru/linguistics1/laguta-00.htm.
7. Aakoff J. Decree. op. P. 63.
8. Ibid. P. 64.
9. Ibid. P. 66.
10. Frumkina R. M. Psycholinguistics: textbook. for students higher textbook establishments. M.: Publishing house. Center "Academy", 2001. pp. 102-103.
11. Aakoff J. Decree. op. pp. 70-71.
12. Ibid. pp. 79-80.
13. Ibid. pp. 80-81.
14. Ibid. P. 98.
UDC 81""1-027.21
O. N. Kushnir
DYNAMICS OF LINGUOCULTURAL CONCEPTS VERBALIZED BY BORROWED PREFIXES (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE MACROCONCEPT “CONFRONTATION, CONFRONTATION”)
Linguoconceptological re-etymologization in the aspect of dynamic synchrony turns out to be a productive method in the analysis of macro-concepts verbalized by borrowed prefixes. In the proposed article, such an analysis is given using the example of the macro-concept “confrontation, confrontation.”
Linguoconceptological reetymologization in the aspect of dynamic synchrony appears to be an efficient method of analyzing macroconcepts verbalized by borrowed prefixes. Such analysis is presented in this article on the example of the macroconcept "confrontation, opposition".
Key words: dynamic linguoconceptology, linguoconceptological re-etymologization, significative concept.
Keywords: dynamical linguoconceptology, linguoconceptological reetymologization, denotation al concept.
The appearance and/or activation of numerous borrowings in the modern Russian language is associated primarily with such well-known reasons as the need to name new realities, the need for specialization of concepts, the tendency to save language resources, etc. (see, for example,). However, the development of the Russian concept sphere is associated not only with fairly obvious nominative needs or linguistic patterns, but also with profound changes in the sphere of linguistic consciousness, which constitute the main subject of dynamic linguoconceptology.
© Kushnir O. N., 2010
The difficulties of studying these deep changes are due to the very nature of the concept, which finds support in internal form verbalizing its key words, which, acting as “the manifestation of the etymon,” is “always the meaning that directs the movement of the meaningful forms of the concept,” “an invariant that approaches the concept, but... is not yet a concept.” Not only Russian, but also a borrowed word as a means of verbalizing a concept is “evidence of Russian intuition,” which, like any object scientific research, cannot be comprehensively revealed, and any tangible scientific progress cannot be achieved without linguistics turning to related areas of knowledge about man and society, especially in linguoculturology (cf., for example, the following remark, with which it is impossible to disagree: “ The science of the Russian language (and linguistics in general) increasingly feels its dependence on the presence (or absence) of knowledge from others, related sciences about a human" ).
We turned to significative concepts that undergo significant changes and are verbalized by borrowed prefixes. Concepts related to the semantics of prefixal and prefixoidal morphemes, including borrowed ones, remain outside the field of view of researchers (for example, prefixal and prefixoidal derivatives are not reflected in the thorough work of V. G. Kostomarov “Linguistic Taste of the Epoch”). Meanwhile, the study of the linguistic-conceptual content of such concepts seems especially significant in the context of dynamic linguoconceptology, based on the material of modern times (the turn of the 20th-21st centuries), when many new lexemes appeared, including borrowed prefixes and prefixoids (and new concepts corresponding to them) , actualization, deactualization or rethinking of “old” concepts.
Turning to prefixes as a means of verbalizing linguocultural concepts, considered in dynamics, allows one to discern some shifts in the significative space of Russian linguoculture. In this sense, the method of linguoconceptological re-etymologization, well known to Russian conceptology (see, for example:), turns out to be very productive.
Let us turn, as an example, to the analysis of the macroconcept “Confrontation, confrontation,” which belongs to the group of vector concepts that we conditionally distinguish (we propose the naming in accordance with the idea of a vector type of antonymy).
Such concepts, best viewed through the prism of the semantics of derivatives with the prefix anti-, are one of the essential means of
GRAMMAR CATEGORIES, specially organized and expressed sets of linguistic meanings (“grammemes”) that have a privileged status in language system; Each language has its own grammatical categories, but many are essential for human experience meanings appear as part of the grammatical categories of a very large number of languages (such as, for example, the values of the number of objects, the duration of an action, the time of action relative to the moment of speech, the subject and object of the action, desirability, etc.).
To be considered a grammatical category, a set of meanings must have at least two properties, namely categoricality and commitment. The first property (also known under the names of mutual exclusivity, paradigmaticity, homogeneity, functionality, etc.) allows us to select from the entire set of linguistic meanings those that are combined into categories; the second identifies among linguistic categories those that are grammatical for a given language. A category can only be a set of values whose elements exclude each other, i.e. cannot simultaneously characterize the same object (this property can be formulated in another way: each object at a certain moment can be assigned only one value from this set). Thus, the property of categoricality, or mutual exclusivity in the normal case, is possessed by the values physical age(a person cannot be an old man and a child at the same time), gender, size and many others. In contrast, meanings such as color are not categories: the same object may well be colored in different colors at the same time.
Not all linguistic categories, however, can be considered grammatical. To do this, it is necessary that the category satisfies the second property, i.e. the property of obligatory nature (in modern linguistics this statement has received wide recognition, mainly after the works of R. Jacobson, but similar ideas have been expressed before). A category is obligatory (for a certain class of words) if every word from this class expresses any meaning of this category. Thus, in the Russian language, for example, the category of verb tense is obligatory: every personal form of the verb in the text expresses one of the meanings of this category (either past, present, or future tense), and there is no such personal form of the verb about which it was possible would say that she has “no time”, i.e. not characterized by tense grammatically.
The existence of obligatory categories in a language means that the speaker, when planning to use a word in speech, is forced to express with this word one of the meanings of a certain category (i.e., characterize this word according to this category). So, choosing personal form verb, a Russian speaker must characterize it by aspect, tense, mood, voice, person/number (or, in the past tense, gender) of the subject, since all these are grammatical categories of the Russian verb. The speaker is obliged to indicate the appropriate meanings of grammatical categories, even if this is not part of his own communicative intention - for example, he may not have specifically intended to indicate the time of action. Of course, the speaker can still avoid indicating time - but then he will no longer have to use a verb, but, for example, a noun, which in Russian does not have a mandatory tense category. Wed. a couple of types You came ~ your arrival, where grammatical tense is expressed only in the first case; If desired, this can be done in the second case (cf. your past/future arrival etc.), but it is important that if the speaker wants to evade expressing time with a noun, he can freely do this without violating the grammatical requirements of the language, whereas in the case of the verb form this is impossible.
The grammatical categories of each language can be likened to a kind of questionnaire for the description of objects and situations in a given language: the speaker cannot successfully complete this description without answering (whether he wants to or not) the questions of such a “grammatical questionnaire”. As R. Jacobson aptly notes, “the main difference between languages is not what can or cannot be expressed, but what should or should not be communicated by speakers.” This implies the importance of the role that grammar plays in creating the so-called “naive picture of the world”, i.e. that way of reflecting reality, which constitutes the specificity of each language (and the culture behind it), since it is in the system of grammatical categories that the collective experience of the speakers of a given language is primarily reflected.
The number of grammatical categories varies in different languages; There are languages with a very developed “grammatical profile”; in other languages the set of grammatical categories is very limited (languages completely devoid of grammatical meanings are still not attested, although their existence, generally speaking, does not contradict linguistic theory).
Along with the two main properties indicated above, grammatical categories, as a rule, are characterized by a number of additional properties. The area of applicability of a grammatical category (i.e., the set of those words for which the category is obligatory) must be large enough and have natural boundaries (as a rule, these are large semantic-grammatical classes of words such as nouns or verbs or their subclasses such as transitive verbs, animate nouns and so on.). On the other hand, the number of meanings of a grammatical category (grammes) is usually small, and they are expressed using a small number of regular indicators. These three additional properties allow, in particular, to distinguish between grammatical and so-called lexical obligatoriness (the latter is always tied to a small group of words, and the corresponding meanings do not have regular indicators). Thus, in Russian, the choice of the meaning “child of the same parents” is necessarily accompanied by an indication of the child’s gender (accordingly, Brother or sister), however, we cannot talk about the grammatical category “gender of a relative” for the reasons listed above: the obligatory indication of gender in the Russian language is characteristic of only a small group of nouns (terms of kinship), and at the same time there are no special indicators of male or female gender as part of these I have no words. Lexical obligatoryness is a very common phenomenon, but it characterizes separate groups vocabulary of a given language and is not systematic in nature.
The meaning of grammes of grammatical categories is very complex object; entities called grammatical meanings (for example, “plural”, “dative case”, “past tense”, etc.), as a rule, are much more complex lexical meanings. One should not equate the name of a gramme with its meaning (as authors of grammatical descriptions often do, wittingly or unwittingly): behind a name like “plural” there actually stands a certain set contextual meanings, expressed by a set of formal indicators, and any indicator can have any of these values, and any value can be assigned to any of these indicators. Thus, in Russian, number is expressed differently depending on the type of declension of the noun and other factors (cf. fingers,Houses,apples,stu-ya etc.), and the forms plural- regardless of what indicator is present in them - can express not only a simple set of objects, but also a class of objects as a whole ( ostriches are dying out), different varieties or types of objects ( precious metals,cheeses), a large number of ( sands), uncertainty ( are there any free places? ""at least one place"), etc. This situation is typical for most grammes, which, therefore, in the general case, are only a kind of labels denoting a rather complex correspondence between the formal and substantive elements of the language.
The contextual meanings of grammes may include an appeal to both the properties of the surrounding world and the syntactic properties of other words. Meanings of the first type are called semantic (or semantically filled, nominative, etc.); values of the second type are called syntactic (or relational), which reflects their main property - to serve the expression syntactic connections between words in the text, and not a direct description of reality (cf., for example, gender grammes in Russian nouns like sofa And ottoman, reflecting only the difference in their matching models: a big sofa And large ottoman). Syntactic meanings are present to one degree or another in almost every grammatical category (for example, in Russian, the syntactic uses of number include the appearance of the singular in constructions with numerals like three Houses , twenty one house or in distributive constructions like advisers put on nose glasses). There are also grammatical categories in which syntactic meanings predominate or are even the only ones. Such categories are called syntactic; The most important of them include the gender and case of nouns, and in some cases also the voice and mood of verbs. Languages that lack syntactic grammatical categories are called insulating(These are primarily the Austroasiatic, Thai and Sino-Tibetan languages of Southeast Asia, the Mande and Kwa languages of West Africa, etc.).
Most often, grammemes are expressed using morphological means - affixes (which include prefixes, suffixes, infixes, circumfixes and transfixes), as well as alternations and reduplications. The morphological expression of grammes is characteristic of agglutinative and fusional languages (in the latter, non-affixal morphological technique also plays a significant role). The most striking examples of fusion languages are Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Lithuanian, and many Indian languages North America and etc.; widely spoken languages with equally features of agglutinativity and fusion (such are, for example, many Uralic, Mongolian, Semitic languages, Bantu languages, etc.). At the same time, there is also a non-morphological way of expressing grammatical meanings, in which these latter are conveyed by independent word forms (“function words”) or syntactic constructions. Languages with a predominance of non-morphological techniques for expressing grammatical meanings are called analytical (such, in particular, are the Polynesian languages).
If a grammatical category is structured in such a way that all its grammes are capable of being alternately attached to the stem of the same word, then such a category is called inflectional, and combinations of its grammes with the stem of a word are grammatical forms of this word. The totality of all grammatical forms of one word forms its paradigm, and a word, understood as the totality of all its forms, is called a lexeme. Typical examples of inflectional categories are the case of a noun, tense and mood of a verb, etc.: thus, in the normal case, the stem of each noun is combined with indicators of all cases of a given language, the stem of each verb - with indicators of all moods, etc. (non-systematic violations of this principle lead to the emergence of so-called defective paradigms, cf. the absence of a genitive plural form in the word cod or 1st person unit forms. verb numbers win In russian language).
Not all grammatical categories, however, form paradigms of grammatical forms: a situation is also possible when only one gramme can be expressed at the base of a word. Such grammatical categories contrast not different forms of the same word, but different words(i.e. different lexemes) and are called word-classifying. A typical example of a word-classifying category is the gender of nouns: for example, in the Russian language, each noun belongs to one of three genders, but Russian nouns do not have the ability to form “gender paradigms” (i.e., freely change the meaning of gender). On the contrary, in Russian adjectives the category of gender, as is easy to see, is inflectional (cf. paradigms like white ~ white ~ white etc.).
The main syntactic grammatical categories are gender and case (for a name) and voice (for a verb): gender is associated with the morphological expression of agreement, and case is associated with the morphological expression of control. In addition, both case and voice provide a distinction between the semantic and syntactic arguments of the verb, i.e. syntactic entities such as subject and objects, and semantic entities such as agent, patient, instrument, place, reason, and many others. etc. Syntactic (concordant) categories also include person/number and gender of the verb.
Most of the grammatical categories found in the languages of the world belong to semantic categories. The specific semantic categories of nouns are number and determination (or, in the “European” version, definiteness/indeterminacy). The categories of number, determination and case closely interact and are often expressed by a single grammatical indicator (inflection); inflectional case-numeral paradigms are also characteristic of the Russian language. The category of number is usually represented by two grammemes (singular and plural), but in a number of languages there is also a dual number, initially associated, apparently, with the designation of paired objects (such as lips, eyes, shores and so on.); the dual number was in ancient Greek, Sanskrit, ancient Russian, classical Arabic; it is also attested in modern languages: Slovenian, Koryak, Selkup, Khanty, etc. Even more rare is the special grammatical expression for a collection of three objects (ternary number) or a small number of objects (pacumatic number): such grammes are found, for example, in the languages of New Guinea.
The system of semantic grammatical categories of the verb is very diverse and varies greatly in different languages. With some degree of convention, verbal categories can be divided into three large semantic zones: aspectual, temporal and modal. Aspectual (or aspectual) meanings include all those that describe the features of the unfolding of a situation in time (duration, limitation, repetition) or highlight certain time phases of the situation (for example, initial stage or result); in this sense, the well-known characteristic of aspect as the “internal tense” of the verb is correct. On the contrary, the grammatical category, traditionally called “time” in linguistics, only indicates the relative chronology of a given situation, i.e. whether it takes place before, simultaneously or after some other situation (“reference point”). The starting point can be arbitrary (and in this case we have the category of relative time, or taxis), but it can also be fixed; a fixed point of reference, coinciding with the moment of utterance of the utterance (“the moment of speech”), gives the category of absolute time with three main grammes: past, present and future tense. An additional indication of the degree of remoteness of the situation from the moment of speech (indication of “temporal distance”) can increase the number of grammes in the category of time; developed systems markings of temporal distance are especially characteristic of Bantu languages ( Tropical Africa). Aspect and tense are often expressed jointly in verbal word forms (hence the traditional grammatical nomenclature, in which “tense” could be called any aspectual-tense verb form). The most typical combinations of the continuous form and the past tense ( common name"imperfect"), and also limited type and past tense (commonly called “aorist”).
The verb system can be characterized a large number aspectual grammemes: thus, to the basic opposition of a long (durative, imperfective) and limited (perfective, point) aspect, at least a habitual (and/or multiple) aspect and an effective aspect are often added (as, for example, in many Turkic languages) . window open , Russian dial He having drunk ). A difference similar to the habitual aspect in Russian can be expressed lexically, cf. boy coming to school And boy walks to school. A special type of the resultative aspect is the perfect, which is very widespread in the languages of the world (for example, the perfect is found in English, Spanish, Greek, Finnish, Bulgarian, Persian and many other languages). On the contrary, “poor” aspectual systems (such as East or West Slavic) are characterized by the opposition of only two aspectual grammes (called perfect vs. imperfect, perfect vs. imperfect, complete vs. incomplete, etc.), but each These grammes have a very wide range of contextual meanings. Thus, in the Russian language, an imperfective grammeme can express duration, repetition, habituality, and even the perfect (cf. Maksim read « War and Peace"); the choice of one interpretation or another depends on the context, the lexical semantics of the verb and other factors. In languages with “rich” aspectual systems (such as Turkic, Polynesian or Bantu), all these meanings can differ morphologically.
The zone of verbal modality (giving the grammatical category of mood) has the most complex and branched structure. Modal meanings include, firstly, those that indicate the degree of reality of the situation (unreal situations do not take place in reality, but are possible, probable, desired, conditional, etc.), and secondly, those that express the speaker’s assessment of the situation being described (for example, the degree of reliability of the situation, the degree of desirability of the situation for the speaker, etc.). It is easy to see that evaluative and unreal meanings are often closely related to each other: thus, desired situations always have a positive assessment by the speaker, unreal situations often have a lower degree of reliability, etc. It is no coincidence that the use, for example, conditional mood to express doubt or incomplete certainty, characteristic of many languages of the world.
A special place among mood grammes is occupied by the imperative, which combines the expression of the speaker’s desire with the expression of an impulse directed at the addressee. The imperative is one of the most common grammes in natural languages(perhaps this meaning is universal). Mood grammes also have a large share of syntactic uses (for example, in many languages, the predicate of a subordinate clause must take the form of one of the unreal moods; the same applies to the expression of questions or negations).
Adjacent to the mood is the grammatical category of evidentiality, which expresses the source of information about the situation being described. In many languages of the world, such an indication is mandatory: this means that the speaker must indicate whether he observed this event with your own eyes, heard about it from someone, judges it based on indirect signs or logical reasoning, etc.; the most complex evidential systems are characteristic of Tibetan languages and a number of languages American Indians, somewhat simpler evidential systems are found in the languages of the Balkan area (Bulgarian, Albanian, Turkish), as well as in many languages of the Caucasus, Siberia and the Far East.
There is still no generally accepted definition of a text, and in answering this question, different authors point to different aspects of this phenomenon: D. N. Likhachev - to the existence of its creator, who realizes a certain plan in the text; O. L. Kamenskaya - on the fundamental role of the text as a means verbal communication; A. A. Leontyev - on the functional completeness of this speech work. Some scholars recognize the text only in writing, others find it possible to exist oral texts, but only in monologue speech. Some also recognize the existence of a text in dialogical speech, understanding by it the implementation of any speech intention, which may simply be the desire to communicate. Thus, according to M. Bakhtin, “a text as a sign complex relates to statements and has the same characteristics as a statement. It is this point of view of the scientist that is accepted in linguistics and psycholinguistics, and the text is considered as thematically coherent, unified in semantically and a speech work that is holistic in terms of concept.” [Bakhtin M.M. 1996, p. 310]
I. R. Galperin states that “Text is a product of the speech-creative process, possessing completeness, a work objectified in the form of a written document, consisting of a name (heading) and a number of special units (supraphrasal units), united by different types of lexical, grammatical, logical, stylistic connection, which has a certain purposefulness and pragmatic attitude." [Galperin, I.R. 1981]
Thus, I. R. Galperin understands text not as oral speech fixed on paper, always spontaneous, disorganized, inconsistent, but as a special type of speech creation, which has its own parameters that differ from the parameters of oral speech.
The appearance of the term “Text Category” is due to the desire of modern linguistics and stylistics to identify the structure of the text, which cannot be done relying only on elementary units of analysis - words and speech techniques. Each text category embodies a separate semantic line of the text, expressed by a group of linguistic means, specially organized into relative intratextual integrity. Categories of text (content, structural, structure, functional, communicative), being essentially different, do not add up to each other, but are superimposed on each other, giving rise to a certain unified formation that is qualitatively different from the sum of its components. Coherence and integrity as properties of the text can be considered autonomously only for the convenience of analysis, somewhat abstractly, since both of these qualities within the framework of a real text exist in unity and presuppose each other: a single content, the meaning of the text is expressed precisely language means(explicit or implicit).
The basis of the universal categories of the text is integrity (the plane of content) and coherence (the plane of expression), which enter into a relationship of complementarity and diarchy with each other.
The largest researcher of the linguistic organization of text, I. R. Galperin, argued that “one cannot talk about any object of study, in this case the text, without naming its categories” [Galperin, 1981, p. 4].
According to the classification of I.R. Galperin, the text has the following categories:
1. Integrity (or wholeness) of the text
2. Connectivity
3. Completeness
4. Absolute anthropocentricity
5. Sociological
6. Dialogue
7. Extensiveness and consistency (illogicality)
8. Static and dynamic
10. Aesthetics of the text
11. Imagery
12. Interpretability
In terms of the topic under consideration, the most important category to consider is dialogicity.
Dialogue literary text as a side literary work studied in a series of monographic works by M.M. Bakhtin. And it is connected, in his opinion, with another quality of an artistic text - with the infinity, openness, multi-layeredness of its content, which does not allow for an unambiguous interpretation of the text, as a result of which highly artistic literary works do not lose relevance for many decades and centuries. In addition, the dialogical nature of the text, according to M.M. Bakhtin, is also manifested in the fact that any text is a response to other texts, since any understanding of a text is its correlation with other texts.
As you know, M.M. Bakhtin distinguished between linguistics as the science of language and metalinguistics as the science of dialogical speech. In this regard, he noted that “linguistics studies “language” itself with its specific logic in its generality, as a factor that makes dialogical communication possible, while linguistics consistently abstracts itself from the dialogical relationships themselves” [Bakhtin, 1979: p. 212]. This statement by Bakhtin should be perceived, first of all, as an expanded interpretation of the traditional term “dialogue”, in connection with which a new one is quite rightly attributed to Bakhtin broad understanding dialogue, which has the fundamental properties of universality [Zotov, 2000: p.56]. The basis of this understanding is the recognition of the fact that a statement, if considered not in isolation, but in relation to other statements, turns out to be an extremely complex phenomenon. “Each individual utterance is a link in the chain speech communication, on the one hand, absorbing the previous links of this chain, and on the other, being a reaction to them. At the same time, the utterance is connected not only with previous, but also with subsequent links of speech communication. As for the second case, the connection between statements is manifested here in the fact that every statement is constructed taking into account possible responses” [Bakhtin, 1979: p. 248]. Based on this position, Bakhtin argues that dialogical relations of this kind cannot be reduced to either purely logical or purely linguistic; they presuppose language, but they do not exist in the system of language [Ibid: p. 296].
MM. Bakhtin noted that the specificity of dialogical relations in their expanded interpretation requires special philological study, since dialogical relations are a much more capacious phenomenon than the relations between the replicas of a compositionally expressed dialogue [Bakhtin, 1979: 296]. At the same time, one cannot help but admit that traditional dialogue and dialogue in the Bakhtinian understanding have the same basis and represent a certain type of speech activity, a description of the nature of which can be the basis for further linguistic research, ultimately aimed at typologizing the dialogue. One of the newest developments undertaken in the vein of Bakhtinian dialogue formulates the problem in the form of a theory of dialogue and introduces the special term “dialogistics”, thereby giving even greater weight and significance to the ideas of dialogic communication. Its authors trace the origins of this problem in the works of Bakhtin’s older contemporaries, such as A.A. Meie, M.M. Prishvin, A.A. Ukhtomsky, some of whom used their own terminology, essentially identifying dialogue with interview.
As is known, based on the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin, a direction has emerged in modern linguistics, defined as intertextuality and aimed at identifying the relationships between statements within the boundaries of a certain macrotext, understood in this case as a text space not limited by any spatio-temporal framework. Following Bakhtin, such interaction of statements is usually called dialogical [Zotov Yu.P., 2000: 5].
The essence of the dialogical interaction of utterances within the boundaries of literary communication can be considered from various points point of view, and primarily from the point of view of the intended purpose of a particular statement to a particular or non-specific person. The “intent” of the text for a specific addressee, whom the author has in mind when writing a particular literary work, seems to be the very factor that ultimately determines the laws of text construction. How the author imagines the future recipient, and how he ends up decisive moment, which sets a unique tone for the entire textual structure. Despite the importance of this textual element, it as such has not yet been highlighted and has not been traced in various parts of the macrotext, under which in this case study This refers to the English-language poetic text of certain chronological periods in its entirety of existing works, without special emphasis on the features of the idiolect. Meanwhile, it is already a priori quite obvious that certain genre samples of text, such as epitaphs, dedications or, for example, poems for children, have so much high degree textual purpose (or even addressing), that it completely determines the laws of their construction. [Solovieva E.A. 2006, p.17]
Thus, the problem of text dialogics (or in the newest formulation, dialogistics) as regards the scope of research within the competence of text linguistics, lies in the consideration of special dialogical relationships that determine the author’s position in text construction and depend on the purpose of the literary text he creates for one or another. to another addressee. Of no small importance is the establishment of the nature of such dialogical relationships within the boundaries of a single macrotext, for which its genre and stylistic originality is recognized as an indispensable condition.