their status, correlation, interaction
(using the example of the functional-semantic category ‘intensity’)
In the field of current and controversial issues modern linguistics Attention is drawn to the problem of considering such a dominant category of language as the category of intensity in relation to quantity and expressiveness.
Quantity as a universal conceptual category, refracted in the sphere of other categories, finds one of its expressions in the linguistic category of intensity through the possibility of representing quantitative modifications of the magnitude of a feature. When considering the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of quantity, one can rely on the fundamental thoughts of de Courtenay expressed in the work “Quantity in Linguistic Thinking.” He notes that “... one of the aspects of universal existence is a whole complex of quantitative ideas, covered, that is, dismembered and united (integrated), mathematical thinking”, and highlights the quantitative intensity as an expression of the quantity (degree) of a characteristic [Baudouin de Courtenay 1963: 312-313]. Also relevant for modern linguistics is his idea about the correlation in language of the category of quantity, which is an abstract category of human thinking, with the category of quality: “comparison different degrees quality gave, on the one hand, different grammatical degrees, and on the other hand – a designation of different degrees of intensity...” And finally, his idea that “the meaning of tension and intensity of certain elements of linguistic thinking appears most expressively in the field of semantics, both from the intellectual, mental, extra-sensory, and, above all, from the sensory side,” seems important. De Courtenay's concept stimulates the study of qualitative-quantitative relations as such, as well as in their relationship with other types of relations.
A broad interpretation of intensity also goes back to the ideas of S. Bally, who by the term 'intensity' understands “all differences that can be reduced to the category of quantity, magnitude, value, strength, etc., regardless of whether we are talking about specific ideas or abstract ideas” and further clarifies that “... a quantitative difference or a difference in intensity is one of those general “categories” into which we introduce any objects of our perception or our thought” [Bally 1961: 203].
The category of intensity is included in the content plan of both the linguistic category of quality and the linguistic category of quantity, therefore, it is associated with the qualitative-quantitative category of measure. However, the category of intensity is not synonymous with the category of measure, since intensity indicates the development of a characteristic within the framework of a measure and does not entail a change of this quality. It follows from this that the category of intensity is a particular version of the category of quantity, namely “non-discrete, continuous quantity”, determined “through measurement” [Panfilov 1976: 3].
The category of intensity in the conceptual field, along with the category of measure of quantity, is also correlated with the category of gradualism (E. Sapir, etc.). Relevant for modern linguistics is the idea of E. Sapir that any gradable meaning is not absolute, but relative and contains the idea of comparison. His work “The Psychology of Graduation” also affirms the connection between the categories of quantity and intensity, emphasizing the primacy of the latter as expressing an approximate quantity. E. Sapir distinguishes between gradation in relation to the norm and in relation to comparativeness, that is, it was he who established the opposition of graduated and point concepts. Thus, he notes: “the logical norm between them (polar characteristics - S.S.) is felt by a person not as a true norm, but rather as a blurred zone in which qualities ordered in opposite directions occur” [Sapir 1985: 54].
On the one hand, gradualism is subjective in nature, because it depends on the perception of the individual and the characteristics speech situation, on the other hand, it directly depends on the collective idea developed in society about the norm as some neutral manifestation of a qualitative characteristic for certain objects of reality.
The term 'intensity' in its application to semantics in the last quarter of the 20th century received significant distribution in linguistics, which is associated with the development functional grammar, expressive style. However, despite the relatively large volume of literature, one way or another devoted to the study of the range of problems associated with this term, it has not yet received a generally accepted interpretation. The poor development of this problem is also evidenced by the incomplete representation of the corresponding terminology in linguistic dictionaries.
Some researchers define intensity as a functional-semantic category: “intensity is a functional-semantic category because it expresses the meaning high level generality, characterized by different levels of means of expression and field organization of these means” [Sheigal 1990: 11]. Others associate intensity with the denotative-significative and connotative aspects of the word.
Intensity, thus, is closely related to the category of quantity and is in direct connection with the category of emotionality and expressiveness. Although the semantics of amplification has been revealed in a number of studies using material from different levels of language, primarily lexical, its status and relationship with related categories remains debatable. In works devoted to the range of these problems, there is an understanding of intensity as an increase in expressiveness, as a dominant component, systematically realized in affective speech.
It is significant that Sh. Bally, in connection with the tasks of studying stylistics, considers “emotional intensity”, since, in his opinion, stylistics studies “... the expressive facts of the language system from the point of view of their emotional content, that is, the expression in speech of phenomena from the field of feelings and actions of speech facts on feelings." His idea about the impossibility of reducing all means of intensification to lexical ones is also very valuable. In particular, he classifies as a means of intensification both the section of linguistics, which he called “affective syntax,” and prosody.
As in the study of S. Bally, in the article by E. Sapir “The Psychology of Graduation” the idea is raised about the interaction of intensity with emotionality, namely with the “emotional aspect” in terms of expressing the relationship between participants in a communicative act. Considering gradation in its relationship with the norm and subjective judgments (emotionality), E. Sapir also touches on the category of evaluativeness. At the same time, he points out that “after a person has gained experience in determining what society accepts and what rejects, what it evaluates (emphasis added - S.S.) as well known , and what is unknown or unusual, he begins to accept contrasting qualities as having, in general, an absolute, so to speak, nature.”
Last quarter of XX and early XIX centuries are characterized by a sharply increased interest of linguists in the problem under consideration, which is probably explained by the priority position of semantics in the linguistics of this period, called the “semantic explosion” (), as well as the anthropocentric approach to language.
One of the controversial issues in modern linguistics is the question of the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of expressiveness. In modern general and specific linguistic literature devoted to this issue, the category of intensity is usually included in the category of expressiveness (, etc.). Thus, he believes that there is a narrow and broad interpretation of the category of expressiveness: “In in a broad sense Expressiveness is understood as the expressiveness of speech, which arises on the basis of such semantic properties of linguistic units as emotionality, evaluativeness, imagery... In in the narrow sense Expressiveness is considered as intensity, as contained in the meaning of the word, intensification (emphasis added by us - S.S.) of the degree of manifestation of a certain characteristic" [Sternin 1983: 123] . Intensity and expressiveness are also understood as a measure and “measurable property of speech” (, etc.). In particular, he notes that “... if the opposition is relevant for the intellectual function - yes/no, then for expressive function the opposition is relevant - stronger/weaker, and for emotional - good/bad. Thus, expressiveness is measured by intensity, and emotionality - by evaluativeness" [Shakhovsky 1975: 17], and indicates that "intensity is a meter of the degree of expressiveness, a meter of imagery, expressiveness, evaluativeness... The degree of intensity is a measure of expressiveness" [Turansky 1992: 29].
The research also reflects the idea of the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of expressiveness as cause and effect (, etc.). Thus, he notes that “... between intensity and expressiveness there are not inclusive, but cause-and-effect relationships...” [Livanova 1995: 22]. However, the interpretation of these categories as being in a cause-and-effect relationship, in our opinion, is not correct enough, since cause and effect are ontological categories presented in the form of two situations connected by a logical proposition. Obviously, we can only talk about one or another relationship and interdependence of such categories as intensity and expressiveness. The similarity between the semantics of expressiveness and intensity is also determined by the fact that “expression is based on a deliberate discrepancy between any linguistic or speech means language standards, i.e. the most regular, stable models" [Kharchenko 1976: 68].
Thus, intensity is understood by us as a category associated with such a quantitative qualification of a phenomenon that demonstrates a deviation from the “zone of normativity” (). At the same time, we consider it necessary to emphasize its dual nature: on the one hand, it has an ontological status as a category lying within the framework of quantitative relations, i.e., it has an extra-linguistic referent, on the other hand, receiving the character of emphasis, it switches to the connotative level of language and speech, interacting with the category of expressiveness.
Literature
Bally Sh. French stylistics / S. Bally. – M., 1961. – 394 p.
Baudouin de Quantitativeness in linguistic thinking / de Courtenay // Selected works By general linguistics. – M., 1963. – T.2. – pp. 311-324.
Expressive vocabulary colloquial use / . – Novosibirsk, 1986. – 230 p.
Sapir E. Psychology of grading / E. Sapir // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 16. – M., 1985. – P. 43-78.
Sternin I. A. About three types of expressiveness of a word // The structure of linguistic stylistics and its main categories. – Perm, 1983. – P. 123-127.
Distinction between evaluativeness, imagery, expression and emotionality in the semantics of a word // Russian language at school, 1976. – No. 3. – P. 66-71.
The problem of distinguishing between expressiveness and emotionality as semantic categories of linguistics // Problems of semasiology and linguistic stylistics. – Ryazan, 1975. Issue. 2. – P. 3-25.
Gradation in lexical semantics / . – Kuibyshev, 1990. – 95 p.
Introduction
The question of the mental basis of linguistic structures and their speech implementations is considered in the modern linguistic paradigm as one of the most important. In this regard, research within the framework of the relatively recently declared conceptual linguistics - a field of linguistics focused on the analysis of the genesis, development and functioning of linguistic structures in terms of their conditionality by the mental substrate, the most important component of which are discrete elements of consciousness - concepts (concepts), becomes especially relevant. which are capable of grouping into complex structures called conceptual categories. The latter have been the subject of quite a lot of research, but have not received any uniform interpretation. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the history of the issue of conceptual categories and propose a possible taxonomy of their essential characteristics and functions.
1. Information from the history of the issue
The term “conceptual categories” was first introduced into scientific use by O. Espersen in his classic work “Philosophy of Grammar,” which was published in 1924. O. Espersen recognizes that “along with syntactic categories, or in addition to them, or behind these categories , depending on the structure of each language, in the form in which it exists, there are also extra-linguistic categories that do not depend on more or less random facts existing languages. These categories are universal in that they apply to all languages, although they are rarely expressed in those languages in a clear and unambiguous way. (…) For lack of a better term, I will call these categories conceptual categories.” Without excluding the traditional approach to the study of languages - from form to content (semasiological approach), O. Jespersen, like his contemporary F. Bruno, considers important the method of studying language from the inside, from the inside, going from content to form, thus laying , basics of onomasiology.
It is with this approach that the essential role that conceptual categories play in the success of linguistic research becomes obvious, and the question arises of determining their ontology and functions.
The term “conceptual categories,” as noted above, belongs to O. Jespersen; It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the theory of conceptual categories as the mental substratum of language began to develop only with the works of this researcher. It should be recognized that even before O. Jespersen, assumptions were made in the linguistic literature about the existence of a certain mental essence that precedes linguistic (especially grammatical) constructions and lies at their basis.
There is reason to believe that V. von Humboldt was the first to substantiate the existence of a “universal component” of a language (or, rather, languages) from a strictly linguistic position in connection with his typological research and the creation of a morphological classification of languages. S.D. Katsnelson in the following way summarizes Humboldt’s statements on this topic found in various works: “Universal categories are, for the most part, mental forms of logical origin. They form a system that is the general basis of the language, but is not directly included in the structure of the language. At the same time, they cannot be called strictly logical, since, being turned to grammar, they reveal specific features. We can say that they constitute the realm of “logical grammar,” which is essentially neither logic nor grammar; it is an ideal system that does not coincide with the categories of individual languages. In every separate language the categories of ideal logic are transformed into concrete grammatical categories.” Although Humboldt’s “universal categories” are not yet exactly Jespersen’s “conceptual categories” (which is quite natural: Humboldt is for the most part a typologist, and Jespersen a grammarian), the coincidence of the essential characteristics of both is nevertheless striking.
Some time passes, and G. Paul, in his work “Principles of the History of Language,” published in 1880, dwells in some detail on these categories, calling them, in accordance with the traditions of his time and in the spirit of neogrammatical teaching, “psychological categories.” G. Paul believes that every grammatical category arises on the basis of psychological ones, and the first is nothing more than the external expression of the second. As soon as the effectiveness of a psychological category begins to be revealed in linguistic means ah, this category is becoming grammatical. Note that this position obviously echoes Humboldt’s idea of “transforming” the universal categories he considered into specific grammatical categories. According to Paul, with the creation of a grammatical category, the effectiveness of the psychological category is not destroyed. A psychological category is independent of language (cf. O. Jespersen’s statement quoted above about the extralinguistic nature of conceptual categories and the fact that they do not depend on more or less random facts of existing languages.); existing before the emergence of a grammatical category, it continues to function after its emergence, due to which the harmony that initially existed between both categories can be disrupted over time. The grammatical category, according to Paul, being associated with a stable tradition, is to a certain extent a “frozen” form of a psychological category. The latter always remains something free, alive, taking on a different appearance depending on individual perception. In addition, a change in meaning very often contributes to the fact that the grammatical category does not remain adequate to the psychological category. Paul believes that if a tendency towards leveling subsequently appears, then a shift in the grammatical category occurs, in which peculiar relations may arise that do not fit into the previously existing categories. Next, the author makes an important methodological conclusion regarding the linguistic value of analyzing the processes of interaction between “psychological” and grammatical categories: “Consideration of these processes, which we can trace in some detail, gives us, at the same time, the opportunity to judge the initial emergence of grammatical categories that are inaccessible to our observation.”
At about the same time as O. Jespersen, the French linguist G. Guillaume developed the theory of the conceptual basis of language. Having not received sufficient attention and deserved appreciation during the author’s lifetime, G. Guillaume’s theory is now the object of close study and analysis. Considering the issues of the method of analyzing language, the essence of a linguistic sign, the genesis of a word and its systemic nature and others, G. Guillaume constantly turns to the conceptual factor, strives to study the mental and linguistic in their close relationship. Before the publication of G. Guillaume’s book “Principles of Theoretical Linguistics” in 1992, his concept was known to the Russian-speaking reader primarily thanks to the works of E.A. Referovskaya and L.M. Skrelina, who devoted to the analysis scientific heritage Guillaume has a whole series of works. And although these authors differ in the interpretation of some provisions of Guillaume’s linguistics, both scientists note the most important place in it of the conceptual component.
Currently, there is every reason to believe that G. Guillaume managed to create his own linguistic school, called “vector linguistics”, or “psychosystematics”. Descriptions of individual subsystems of the English language (for example, nouns and articles, as well as verbs) have already been created based on its principles. Among the students and followers of G. Guillaume are R.-L. Wagner. P. Imbs, R. Lafon, B. Pottier, J. Stefanini, J. Moynier, M. Moglio, J. Maillard and others. Assessing their linguistic works, L. M. Skrelina considers the main and characteristic feature of these scientists to be close attention to specific linguistic facts, which comes from G. Guillaume, and the desire to consider them “from the inside,” from the side of the signified, starting from conceptual categories when explaining the functioning of elements in speech.
Following O. Espersen, I. I. Meshchaninov raises the question of the nature of conceptual categories. The scientist’s first work, which laid the foundation for his development of the theory of conceptual categories, was published in 1945. It was followed by another whole line works devoted to this problem. The impetus for these studies was the insufficient development of the question of the mutual connections of language with thinking, especially the fact that “the establishment of a common point of view on the connection of language with thinking was largely hampered by blind and categorical borrowing from textbooks of logic and psychology, which boils down to attempts to interpret linguistic facts from the point of view of the provisions developed in them. The facts of language were illuminated from the outside, instead of receiving their explanation within themselves.” In addition, the typological studies conducted by I.I. Meshchaninov led the scientist to the idea that the differences between languages are not absolute, but relative in nature and relate mainly to the form of explication of content, while concepts such as objectivity and action, subject, predicate , object, attribute with their modal connotations, as well as relationships between words in a sentence turn out to be common to all languages. The identification of this universal mental substrate became in the works of I.I. Meshchaninov problems associated with the analysis of conceptual categories.
Among other most famous domestic researchers who contributed to the development of the topic of the mental foundations of language, one should name S.D. Katsnelson. S.D. Katsnelson develops this topic in relation to three main areas of linguistic research: general grammar and the theory of parts of speech; the problem of generating utterances and speech-thought processes; typological comparison of languages. Let's consider all three of these areas in a little more detail.
Arguing against the formal understanding of parts of speech based on the selection of words formal features and specific categories that are formed on the basis of inflectional morphology, S.D. Katsnelson, following L.V. Shcherba, considers the meaning of the word as the determining moment when assigning a word to one category or another. The taxonomy of language elements, therefore, is carried out by him on an onomasiological basis - from meaning to form (cf. the above points of view on this issue by O. Jespersen and F. Bruno). According to S.D. Katsnelson, “in the very meanings of words, regardless of whether they are formed inflectively or according to the norms of a different morphology, there are certain strongholds that allow us to talk about nouns, adjectives, etc.” Conceptual and semantic categories serve as such “supporting points”.
In the theory of speech generation, S.D. Katsnelson adheres to the typical understanding of the process of speech generation for representatives of generative semantics, in which the initial structure of the generative process and one of the basic concepts of the entire concept is a proposition. The latter is understood as a certain mental content expressing a certain “state of affairs,” an event, a state as a relationship between logically equal objects. As part of a proposition, the members that bear the relation and the relational predicate connecting them are distinguished. Moreover, each of the members of the proposition in itself is neither a subject nor a direct object, but as part of sentences arising on the basis of the proposition it can appear in any of these syntactic functions. “A proposition contains a moment of imagery and in this respect reflects reality more directly than a sentence. Like a painting, it depicts a complete episode, without prescribing the direction and order of consideration of individual details.” Propositions, acting as operational schemes at the initial phase of the speech-generating process, although they are oriented towards a certain semantic content, are not meaningful enough on their own, without filling the “places” they open with certain meanings to serve as the basis for their further transformation into sentences. These structures require special units to fulfill propositional functions. Such units are concepts. As can be seen from these arguments of the scientist, not only is the existence of a certain mental substrate allowed, which has a non-linguistic character and serves as the basis for the speech-generating process, but its heterogeneity and complex structure is also noted.
As for typological research, according to S.D. Katsnelson, the involvement of the content side in the orbit of these studies is necessary due to at least the fact that in the area of content, languages display features of both similarity and difference. Emphasizing the fundamental possibility of transition from the semantic system of one language to the semantic system of another language, the scientist places emphasis on the universal, universal human thought processes that underlie speech-creative activity. On the other hand, “the transition from a logical-semantic system to an idiosemantic system of a given language does not present significant difficulties, since, remaining within the same language, we always know when the configuration of conceptual components forms a meaning fixed by the norm and when more than one corresponds to it,” but several meanings. When we encounter a language that is new to us, these boundaries disappear due to a different distribution of conceptual components between meanings compared to the one with which we have become accustomed. It is the conceptual components of meaning that are the sine qua non condition for their typological (interlinguistic) congruence.”
We can summarize S.D. Katsnelson’s views on the significance of the mental prelinguistic substrate as follows: “Mental categories form the basis of the grammatical structure, since with their help, comprehension of sensory data and their transformation into propositions is achieved.”
Research in line with this issue has received its further development in the works of A.V. Bondarko in connection with the development by this author of the category of functional-semantic field, as well as his analysis of functional-semantic, semantic/structural categories. Particularly noteworthy is the article by A.V. Bondarko “Conceptual categories and linguistic semantic functions in grammar”, specifically devoted to the consideration of the relationship of these entities and the analysis of the linguistic semantic interpretation of conceptual categories. The article also addresses the issue of the universality of conceptual categories. In general, it should be emphasized that A.V. Bondarko, repeatedly noting the close connection of his theoretical research with the views of O. Espersen and I.I. Meshchaninov, at the same time expresses his own, somewhat different attitude to the problem under consideration. Based on the theory of conceptual categories, A.V. Bondarko at the same time deviates somewhat from it. The direction he has chosen is determined by the desire to consistently interpret the categories under consideration as linguistic categories, having linguistic content and linguistic expression. Related to this is the scientist’s refusal of the term “conceptual category,” since, as he believes, this term gives reason to think that what is meant logical concepts, not categories of language.
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 the structure of the language 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 of grammatical forms opposed to each other. 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 and grammatical classes of words (notional parts of speech) – categories of aspect, 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 that the structures of being depend, even on universal, but still human definitions, turned out to be more fruitful precisely on the first path. This path led to the development of a linguistic interpretation of categories, which was stimulated by the research of Wilhelm Humboldt.
As has already been shown, the main function of categories is to introduce a certain order into a certain undifferentiated 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 who is completely unaware of the existence of theoretical schemes of 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 represented 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, something already happens the primary dismemberment of being, and the primary synthesis of sensory impressions.
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 a form (more precisely, as one of the possible forms) of the external expression of an 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 - etc. .e. categorical relationships.
Categories are not derived from subject experience, but are mastered along with language acquisition and are consolidated, first of all, in verbal communication skills. They are realized much later than they begin to be used in language practices. Apparently, the order historical development categories was the same. First, unconscious, unconscious use and only then (much later) comprehension.
Exists organic connection categories with 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 different 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 the Hegelian Absolute Idea into the sphere of human language and say goodbye to the hope that inspired these thinkers to discover (or create) an absolutely complete and complete system of categories that would be one and only “for everyone.” 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. How extremely general childbirth, 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 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 scope of each of these concepts is infinite set, therefore 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 at lower levels of generality delineate the 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, one universal system there are no 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 Goldfish Absolute knowledge. But this network each time brings to the surface only what we ourselves capture in the woven cells.
Gizatullin Danil Eduardovich
GENERAL SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE TERM "CATEGORY" IN LINGUISTICS
The word "category" appeared in the discourse political life Ancient Greece, changed its meaning and moved into the sphere of philosophy, later becoming general scientific. This paper analyzes the meaning of the concept “category” from a general scientific, philosophical and linguistic point of view. More attention is paid to the latter, linguistic use of the term we are interested in, common elements of meaning with general scientific and philosophical terms are identified, and aspects specific to linguistics are highlighted. Article address: www.gramota.net/materials/272017/12-2725.html
Source
Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice
Tambov: Gramota, 2017. No. 12(78): in 4 parts. Part 2. P. 90-93. ISSN 1997-2911.
Journal address: www.gramota.net/editions/2.html
© Publishing house "Gramota"
Information about the possibility of publishing articles in the journal is posted on the publisher’s website: www.gramota.net Questions related to publications scientific materials, the editors ask you to send it to the following address: [email protected]
6. Golovanova E.I. Professional discourse, subdiscourse, genre of professional communication: correlation of concepts // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2013. No. 1 (292). pp. 32-35.
7. Zhura V.V. Discursive competence of a doctor in oral medical communication: abstract. diss. ... d. philol. n. Volgograd, 2008. 42 p.
8. Kushneruk S.P. Modern documentary text: problems of formation, development and composition. Volgograd: Volgograd Scientific Publishing House, 2005. 337 p.
9. Madzhaeva S. I. Functions medical document“case history” // Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2. Linguistics. 2016. No. 1 (30). pp. 147-152.
10. Mirsky M. B. Medicine Russia XVI-XIX centuries. M.: Russian political encyclopedia(ROSSPEN), 1996. 400 p.
11. Mirsky M. B. Surgery from ancient times to modern times. Essays on history. M.: Nauka, 2000. 798 p.
12. About approval unified forms medical documentation used in medical organizations, providing medical care on an outpatient basis, and procedures for filling them out [ Electronic resource]: Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of December 15, 2014 No. 834n. URL: https://minjust. consultant.ru/documents/13638?items=1&page=1 (date of access: 10/17/2017).
13. Romashova O. V. Compositional and content structure of a medical document: stages of formation // Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2. Linguistics. 2015. No. 1 (25). pp. 40-46.
14. Sologub O.P. Russian business text in the functional-genetic aspect: monograph / ed. N. D. Goleva. Novosibirsk: NSTU Publishing House, 2008. 332 p.
15. Foucault M. Archeology of knowledge / trans. from fr. M. B. Rakova, A. Yu. Serebryannikova; entry Art. A. S. Kolesnikova. 2nd edition, rev. SPb.: IC " Humanitarian Academy", 2012. 416 p.
16. Ekazheva Sh. M. Historical aspects of formation modern history diseases [Electronic resource] // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. 2014. T. 4. No. 5. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21598502 (access date: 10.14.2017).
INSTITUTIONAL MEDICAL TEXT: ATTEMPT OF A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
Galkina Svetlana Fedorovna
Novosibirsk State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation Novosibirsk State Technical University port.artur@mail. ru
The article describes a medical outpatient card as an institutional genre. The information on the history of its formation is presented. The determinative interdependent relationship of records with the speech genre of "medical consultation" is explained.
The institutional components of the records and the variant structural components are singled out and described. The author analyzes the influence of a polydiscursive situation on the text of records, which has determined the tendency to de-officialization.
Key words and phrases: medical outpatient card; analysis of document text; polydiscursiveness of document text; institutional
medical discourse; complex genre.
The word “category”, having arisen in the discourse of the political life of Ancient Greece, changed its meaning and moved into the sphere of philosophy, later becoming general scientific. This paper analyzes the meaning of the concept “category” from a general scientific, philosophical and linguistic point of view. More attention is paid to the latter, linguistic use of the term we are interested in, common elements of meaning with general scientific and philosophical terms are identified, and aspects specific to linguistics are highlighted.
Gizatullin Danil Eduardovich
Bashkir State University, Ufa Gizatullindanil@gmail. com
GENERAL SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE TERM “CATEGORY” IN LINGUISTICS
The concept of category is used when considering all levels of language. On at this stage The development of science in domestic linguistics is divided into grammatical, semantic, lexical, phonological, pragmatic and many other categories. Much attention is paid to the problem of categorization, which is fruitfully studied within the framework of cognitive linguistics. In dictionary linguistic terms» T. V. Zherebilo contains 98 articles with the main word “category” and its derivatives. However, the word “category” has not only scientific significance. According to D. N. Ushakov’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, this word includes three components of meaning. In addition to its scientific meaning, “category” means, firstly, “a series homogeneous objects or persons” and, secondly, the category of citizens in terms of the division of rights and responsibilities (for example, “first category”). Taking into account the thematic focus
In this article, we will analyze only the scientific meaning of the concept “category”, turning to the etymology, analyzing the general scientific, philosophical and highly specialized, linguistic understanding.
The word "category" comes from the ancient Greek katnyopia, the literal meaning of which is "to speak against", from kata - "opposition" and auoreyu - "to make a speech". The term under study was first used by Aristotle in his work Organon. Aristotle gives ten types of “predicate”, using which something can be expressed about the subject (“subject”): essence, or substance, quantity (“how much”), quality (“what”), relation (“that, according to relation to what"), space ("where"), time ("when"), state, action, possession and suffering. These “predicates”, or predicates, were identified on the basis of general concepts with subsequent analysis. For example, the predicate of essence is based on the concept of subject: essence is defined by the philosopher as a subject that does not depend on another subject and, therefore, is closed on itself. On this basis, Aristotle identifies primary entities (separate, special person) and secondary, which are species and genera of primary (“man”, “living being”). Because the this concept refers not only to “person”, but also to any referent and its species and genus, then it, taken to identify the class of predicates “entity”, is common to all entities [Ibid., p. 59]. Aristotle uses the word “category” to designate each of these types of predicates. Thus, the author, according to the text of the Organon, using “category” in the meaning of “statement” (“statement”), understands by it rather mental operation by isolating into a separate set certain situations, properties, as well as relationships between reality and the cognizing person, the author of a statement based on a concept common to the elements of the set. Further categorization can also be applied to the categories themselves, for example, dividing “quantity” into “separate” and “continuous”, highlighting the tendency of a given predicate to “correlation” (cf. category of comparison), etc.
According to the “Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary”, a category is an extremely general concept, “reflecting the most significant, natural connections and relationships reality and cognition" (for example, categories of time, space). Categories are “forms and stable organizing principles of the thinking process” that organize experience and form a system [Ibid]. A similar definition is presented in the “Philosophical Dictionary” edited by I. T. Frolov, where categories are understood as “forms of awareness in terms of universal ways of relating a person to the world, reflecting the most general and essential properties, laws of nature, society and thinking.” Based on the philosophical definitions of the term “category” given above, several aspects of its meaning can be identified. Firstly, a category is both a product of human thinking and a form that organizes thinking itself. Secondly, as a product of thinking, or general concept, it is a reflection of general, essential patterns, properties of connections and relationships. Thirdly, the categories are interconnected and form a system, the elaboration of which indicates the level of development of human knowledge of the world.
In the “Dictionary of Linguistic Terms” by T.V. Zherebilo, the term category, in addition to the first philosophical definition, means “category, group, rank of objects, concepts, persons or phenomena, united by the commonality of any characteristics in grammar”, which is not included in the interpretation , given above. However, it is not entirely clear why we are talking only about grammatical categories. In the same dictionary, this concept is analyzed in the article “Categories”, where the emphasis in interpretation is on the formative function of the category and distinguishes general philosophical (essence, form), general scientific (matter, movement), general linguistic (locality, assessment) and textual (prospection, retrospection ) category [Ibid].
The philological (linguistic) understanding of the category is discussed in more detail in the “Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary”, where three meanings are highlighted, each of which implicitly or explicitly contains the main aspects identified above in other dictionaries. First, a linguistic category in the broad sense is “any group linguistic elements, allocated on the basis of some general property” (for example, the category of aspectuality, time, space, destructiveness, etc.).
Secondly, in the strict sense, this term does not mean the group of elements itself, but a feature (parameter), on the basis of which a set of homogeneous linguistic units is divided into “a limited number of non-overlapping classes, the members of which are characterized by the same meaning of this class(for example, “category of case”, “category of aspect”)” [Ibid]. The dictionary also notes a third meaning, when category is understood as one of the types of attribute, for example, “category of the dative case”, “category imperfect form"[Ibid., p. 302].
Language categories differ by type based on the composition of the group of elements, the nature of the attribute and the role it plays in relation to the set. For example, researcher F.G. Fatkullina, when considering the signs of the category of destructiveness in the Russian language, writes that semantic categories “are linguistic categories that are closed within the language as sign system, being relatively stable constants linguistic meanings, and semantic models are constructions (paradigmatic, derivational and syntagmatic) built from semantic categories. Semantic categories permeate all layers of language: they underlie all semantic fields and classes of words, are included in all lexical and grammatical meanings, organize the meanings of all syntactic constructions." If the categorized set of units consists of one-sided elements - phonemes, then phonological categories are distinguished, in which the categories of deafness/voicedness, stop consonants, etc. are distinguished according to the phonetic differential feature. If the elements have bilateral character(word,
lexeme, phrase, sentence), then lexico-semantic, grammatical, syntactic and other categories are distinguished (then the feature is actually semantic, grammatical and syntactic). They also talk about general categorical features in the meaning of “relating to parts of speech” [Ibid.].
Categorizing features, in turn, are divided into modifying and classifying. Thus, if a certain element corresponds to another, opposed to the first only on the basis of one attribute and located in the position of opposition, then such a attribute is modifying (inflectional, differential), and both elements are varieties of more common unit. In this case, the category is correspondingly modifying (such inflectional categories as number and case of the noun, tense and mood of the verb). When opposition does not arise, the attribute is considered classifying (integral, selective) and constant for the element, and the category is considered classifying (parts of speech, nominal classes).
Thus, the understanding of a category in traditional linguistics has more practical nature, aimed at analyzing the meanings necessary for the direct classification of the entire set of linguistic units and building a language paradigm, to identify their properties, connections and patterns, which allows the use of a systematic approach to the study of linguistic elements. A more general, philosophical understanding of the category is not always expressed explicitly, but it is implicitly present and makes itself felt in many situations. For example, when studying semantic categories, the categorical signs of reality underlying lexemes are revealed, casting light on the very categorization by a person of the extra-linguistic world. A general understanding of a category also arises in situations of ambiguity. Thus, the category of aspect for verbs of the Russian language can be considered modifying for some elements, and classifying for others, which depends on the initial determination by the researcher himself of what exactly is considered the rule and what is the exception.
In addition, the problems of category and categorization are developed within the framework of cognitive linguistics, where the emphasis is on how a person, through a limited number of linguistic forms, structures and orders the infinite variety of reality. This introduces the concept language picture world, which reflects specific features categorization of the world by a separate linguistic community. Categorization in cognitive linguistics refers to the very process of verbalized ordering of knowledge that is built into linguistic categories. By postulating this thesis, linguists introduce several important ideas.
First, language uses a general cognitive apparatus human consciousness, from which it follows that linguistic categories should be subject to the same properties as other categories [Ibid., p. 67].
Secondly, the organization of each linguistic category has a core and a periphery. The core contains a prototype - a typical representative of the set of objects included in the category [Ibid., p. 68]. If we turn to the terms of lexical semantics, a prototype can be understood as a denotation isolated from the mass of others, in which the significative meaning is most fully and clearly embodied. Other elements depending on the completeness of implementation essential features categories are located in a mental graduated zone from the yard to the periphery. On the periphery there are elements that deviate as much as possible from the rest, but are nevertheless included in this category elements.
Thirdly, analysis of the results of the categorization process suggests the existence of basic level categories, which correspond to the middle level of the taxonomic hierarchy. J. Lakoff postulates four points of view from which the level can be considered basic: 1) perception (holistic perception of form, quick identification); 2) functions (general motor program); 3) communication (the shortest, most frequent and neutral words that are primarily learned by children) and 4) knowledge organization (the largest number of characteristics of category members are stored at this level).
As a result, in cognitive linguistics, the concept of category is more addressed to the philosophical understanding of the term under study, however, cognitivists not only agree with the established concept of categorization, but often contrast the results of their research with the conclusions that were made within the framework of the classical philosophy of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and others.
List of sources
1. Aristotle. Works: in 4 volumes / ed. Z. N. Mikeladze. M.: Mysl, 1978. T. 2. 683 p.
2. Zherebilo T.V. Dictionary of linguistic terms. Nazran: Pilgrim, 2009. 486 p.
3. Lakoff D. Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories of language tell us about thinking. M.: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. 792 p.
4. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / ed. V. N. Yartseva. M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1990. 683 p.
5. Skrebtsova T. G. Cognitive linguistics: a course of lectures. SPb.: Faculty of Philology St. Petersburg State University, 2011. 256 p.
6. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / ed. D. N. Ushakova. M.: Sov. encyclopedia; OGIZ, 1935. T. 1. 1567 p.
7. Fatkullina F. G. Destructive vocabulary in modern Russian language: monograph. Ufa: IPK under the Administration of the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan, 1999. 300 p.
8. Fatkullina F. G. The concept of destruction in lexical semantics. Ufa: RIC BSU, 2002. 268 p.
9. Philosophical Dictionary / ed. I. T. Frolova. M.: Republic, 2001. 719 p.
10. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary / ed. L. F. Ilyicheva, P. N. Fedoseeva, S. M. Kovaleva, V. G. Panova. M.: Soviet encyclopedia, 1983. 840 p.
11. Category [Electronic resource] // Online Etymolody Dictionary. URL: http://www.etymonline.com/word/category (access date: 11/01/2017).
GENERAL SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE TERM "CATEGORY" IN LINGUISTICS
Gizatullin Danil Eduardovich
Bashkir State University, Ufa Gizatullindanil@gmail. com
The word "category", having emerged in the discourse of the political life of Ancient Greece, changed its meaning and passed into philosophy, later becoming a general scientific one. The article analyzes the meaning of the concept "category" from the general scientific, philosophical and linguistic points of view. Special attention is paid to the last-mentioned, linguistic use of the term. Common elements of meaning with general scientific and philosophical terms are revealed, and the aspects specific to linguistics are identified.
Key words and phrases: category; categorization; semantic categories; theoretical linguistics; language elements; classification.
The article analyzes the speeches of G. Bush and D. Kerry in order to determine the conceptual structure of the image of politicians in the pre-election political discourse in 2004. Conceptual dominants, accompanying socially significant roles and linguistic means of their implementation are identified. The key dominants are PATRIOT, COURAGEOUS PERSON, ORDINARY AMERICAN, GOOD OWNER, PROSPERATE AMERICA.
Keywords and phrases: political image; pre-election discourse; conceptual framework; political communication; public speaking.
Glushak Vasily Mikhailovich, Doctor of Philology. Sc., Associate Professor
Moscow state institute International Relations (University) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russian Federation glushakvm@mail. T
CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF THE IMAGE OF A POLITICIAN DURING AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN (BASED ON THE SPEECHES OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF US PRESIDENT IN 2004)
1. Introduction
Linguoimageology is a branch of linguopragmatics that studies the role of linguistic means and strategies that a person uses to create and maintain his positive image in the eyes of others. Political linguistics considers the category of image as one of the main objects of its research, as evidenced by the growing number of works in this field every year. In their works, researchers make attempts to define the subject of research, identify its structure and describe the body of linguistic means of realizing the image of a politician. At the same time, not enough attention has yet been paid conceptual structure the phenomenon under consideration. Taking it into account will allow us to better understand the linguistic essence of this interdisciplinary phenomenon and identify concepts that explain the public speech behavior of politicians.
The purpose of this study is to identify the basic conceptual components of the image of American politicians during the presidential election campaign and to reveal the micro-roles that candidates ascribe to themselves in accordance with voters' expectations.
2. Research method
The method of conceptual analysis is widespread in political linguistics. political phenomena, which allows us to describe the mental organization of the analyzed categories. Thanks to content analysis, it is possible to identify roles when modeling the image of a successful politician. Thus, the study of linguistic mechanisms for modeling a politician’s image involves identifying conceptual dominants, accompanying socially significant roles and linguistic means of their implementation.
3. The material for the study is George W. Bush's speech at the Republican Party convention on September 2, 2004 and John Kerry's speech at the Democratic Party convention on July 29, 2004.
The speeches of George W. Bush at the Republican National Convention and John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention on September 2 and July 29, 2004, respectively, provide material for the study of communication strategies for creating an image.
George W. Bush's speech at the Republican National Convention on September 2, 2004 consisted of 4,918 words, while John Kerry's speech at the Democratic National Convention on July 29 consisted of 5,326 words. This may be due to several facts. So, for George Bush this was already the second agreement to become a candidate for the post