Cognitive-Discourse Formatting in the Construal of Self and Alternations of Personal Pronouns in...

МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ БЮДЖЕТНОЕ

ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ ВЫСШЕГО

ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ «САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКИЙ

ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ»

ГУМАНИТАРНЫЙ ФАКУЛЬТЕТ

ЯЗЫК И КУЛЬТУРА

В ЭПОХУ

ГЛОБАЛИЗАЦИИ

СБОРНИК НАУЧНЫХ ТРУДОВ по

материалам второй международной

научной конференции

«Язык и культура в эпоху глобализации»

26 марта 2015 г.

В двух частях

Часть 2

ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО САНКТ-

ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА

2015

ББК 81

Я41

Язык и культура в эпоху глобализации : сборник научных Я41 трудов по

материалам второй международной научной конферен-ции «Язык и

культура в эпоху глобализации». 26 марта 2015 г. В двух частях. Часть 2. – СПб. : Изд-во СПбГЭУ, 2015. – 262 с.

ISBN 978-5-7310-3156-1 (часть 2) ISBN 978-5-7310-3154-7

Сборник включает материалы второй международной научной конфе-

ренции «Язык и культура в эпоху глобализации», организованной гумани-

тарным факультетом Санкт-Петербургского государственного экономичес-

кого университета. Конференция посвящена широкому спектру вопросов и проблем, свя-

занных с явлением глобализации, затрагивающей и культуру, и язык. Материалы сборника могут быть использованы при разработке учебных

программ филологических факультетов, а также представляют интерес для

широкого круга специалистов, интересующихся проблемами современной

лингвистики.

The given volume includes a collection of papers presented at the

international conference “Language and culture in the era of globalization”. The conference is dedicated to a wide range of issues and problems related to

the phenomenon of globalization, affecting both culture and language. The papers from the collection can be of use by developing language- and

culture-related courses, and might be of interest to a wide audience concerned

with this overshadowed aspect of globalization.

ББК 81

Редакционная коллегия: д-р филол. наук, проф. Е.В. Белоглазова д-

р филол . наук , проф. И.В. Кононова канд.

филол. наук, ст. преп. Н.А. Алексеева асс.

Е.Ю. Иванова

Рецензенты: д -р филол. наук, проф. И.Б. Руберт д-

р филол. наук, проф. Т.И. Воронцова

ISBN 978-5-7310-3156-1 (часть

2) ISBN 978-5-7310-3154-7

© СПбГЭУ, 2015

3

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ

Язык и культура в тексте и дискурсе

Александрова О.В. Дискурс в контексте современности ............... 6

Алѐшина Е.Ю. Дискурсивные оплошности в коммуникации

политического конфликта ............................................................ 11

Власова Е.Е. Категория эмоциональности как теоретическая и

экспериментальная проблема современной психолингвистики 17

Воложанина Т.С. Причины употребления тавтологий .................. 24

Воронушкина О.В. Когнитивно-дискурсивная парадигма

скрытых смыслов ............................................................................................. 29

Грецкая С.С. О субъективном и объективном в контекстных

моделях .................................................................................................................. 36

Косинова Л.В. Китайский комический жанр «куайбань»:

становление и развитие ................................................................................. 46

Кочетова Л.А. Тенденции развития жанровой системы

английского рекламного дискурса .......................................................... 53

Кузнецова О.Г. Особенности реализации манипулятивных

стратегий в политическом дискурсе ....................................................... 61

Митягина В.А. Тональность туристического интернет-дискурса 69

Новикова Э.Ю. Лингвокультурное измерение интернет-

пространства экскурсионного дискурса ...................................... 76

Пиотровская Л.А. Интонационный аспект речевой деятельности 86

Полякова С.Е., Киселева Ю.К. Стратегии речевого воздействия

логического и эмоционального убеждения в предвыборных

теледебатах....................................................................................................... 98

Симоненко Н.Ю. Фоновые знания в китайских нарративных

песнях: диахронический аспект ................................................................ 103

Тимралиева Ю.Г. «Рваное» сознание эпохи: разрушение

традиционной картины мира в лирике и малой прозе

немецкого экспрессионизма ....................................................................... 109

Фоменко Е.Г. Неустойчивость гномонности в «Дублинцах»

Джеймса Джойса: лингвосинергетический аспект .................... 117

Khrisonopulo E.Yu. Cognitive-discourse formatting in the construal

of self and alternations of personal pronouns in Еnglish .................... 123

Чолан В.Я. Односоставные предложения с прагматической

установкой прескрипции .............................................................................. 132

4

Когнитивный маркетинг и связи с общественностью

Алексеева Т.С. Корпоративные ценности как содержательное ядро корпоративного концепта и фундамент корпоративных

публичных коммуникаций............................................................................... 138

Капитонова М.А. Роль PR в современном дипломатическом

дискурсе .................................................................................................................... 142 Комиссарова Л.М. Экспертиза названий торговых марок как

способ влияния на формирование региональных брендов.............. 149

Кривоносов А.Д. Копирайтинг: к вопросу об объеме понятия ........... 152

Кудрявцева М.Е., Шевченко А.С. Социальная реклама как

инструмент формирования желаемого «образа мира» ...................... 156

Тихомирова Е.И. Лингвистические особенности жанра пресс-

релиз ............................................................................................................................ 162

Взаимосвязь формы и значения в языке

Барташова О.А. Механизм порождения звукоизобразительной

ассоциации и его использование в абстрактном нейминге ............. 170 Богданова С.Ю. Проблемы многозначности и омонимии:

словообразование от имен собственных .................................................. 174

Зеркина Н.Н., Костина Н.Н. Системность языка и системность

аббревиатурного фонда ..................................................................................... 182 Краснова А.В. Особенности перевода турецких ономатопов

удара............................................................................................................................ 189

Патов Н.А. Пойесис языка, информации и коммуникации ................ 192

Сергаева Ю.В. Поэтика и прагматика имен групп в английском

языке ........................................................................................................................... 199

Силка А.А. Глобализационные тенденции в обновлении

фразеологического состава русского и украинского языков ......... 202 Федоров Д.А. Идейные истоки контроверсии «природа» vs

«конвенция» в раннеантичной теории глоттогенеза .......................... 208

Шамина Е.А. Примарная мотивированность английких глаголов

движения ................................................................................................................... 216

5

Когнитивное терминоведение

Гатауллина Н.А. Анализ юридического термина «consideration» с использованием когнитивно-семантического и системного

подходов ................................................................................................................... 221

Киселева С.В., Миронова М.Ю. Полисемия банковских терминов

английского языка ............................................................................................... 230 Никулина О.В. Политическая терминология в

ранненовоанглийском языке........................................................................... 238

Сапронов Ю.В. К вопросу о когнитивных операциях, формирующих поля ............................................................................................ 243

Семенова Е.В. Анализ психологических терминов в

когнитивном аспекте .......................................................................................... 249

Фокина С.Л. Особенности акцентуации нанотехнологических

терминологических словосочетаний в синтагматике речи

носителей английского языка ........................................................................ 252

Сведения об авторах ............................................................................................... 260

123

Библиографический список

1. Алефиренко Н.Ф. Категория имплицитности художественного

текста в когнитивно-дискурсивном аспекте // Гуманитарные

исследования. – 2 (38). – Астрахань: Астраханский гос. ун-т, 2011. – С. 28-

34.

2. Алефиренко Н.Ф. Парадигмальные и непарадигмальные

векторы развития современной лингвистики // Грані сучасної лінгвістики:

колективна монографія / за ред. Олени Г. Фоменко та В.К. Харченко. –

Запоріжжя: Класичний приватний університет, 2014. – С. 9-36. 3. Домброван Т.И. Синергетическая модель развития английского

языка. – Одесса: КП ОГТ, 2014. 4. Газале М. Гномон: от фараонов до фракталов. – М., Ижевск: Ин-т

компьютерных исследований, 2002. 5. Мышкина Н.Л. Концептуально-терминологическая специфика

контрадиктно-синергетической лингвистики // Вестник Челябинского

государственного университета. – 2011. – № 24.– С. 94-96. 6. Моисеева И.Ю. Синергетическая модель текстообразования:

автореф. дис. … д-ра филол. наук. – Челябинск, 2007. 7. Фоменко Е.Г. Языкотворчество Джеймса Джойса: Монография. –

Запорожье: Классический приватный университет, 2014. 8. Joyce J. Dubliners. – L.: Penguin Books, 1996. – 25 6 p. 9. Norris M. Suspicious Readings of Joyce‟s “Dubliners ”. –

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. 10. Senn F. Inductive scrutinies: Focus on Joyce. – Dub lin: The

Lilliput press, 1995.

E. Yu. Khrisonopulo

St. Petersburg, RF

COGNITIVE-DISCOURSE FORMATTING IN THE CONSTRUAL OF SELF AND ALTERNATIONS OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN ENGLISH

One of the most popular approaches to the meanings of personal

pronouns is that based on generalizations over their referential properties. From

this perspective, the meanings of first-, second-, and third-person pronouns are based on the indication of the speaker (I), addressee (you) and a person or entity

(he / she / it) referred to in a particular speech event. Thus, personal pronouns in English are characterized in terms of reference to speech event participants in

such well known grammar manuals as Jespersen [5, p. 147], Huddleston [4, p. 97], Quirk et al. [11, ch. 4].

124

Though in many cases the pronouns‟ referential status appears to be

crucial for the interpretation of utterances where pronouns are used, it is not

always possible to account for their functional properties in discourse in terms of reference alone. For instance, English I and you can alternate in speech as

items that explicitly or implicitly point to the speaker. This usually happens in clauses of epistemic stance when a cognitive verb collocates with either a first-

person or second-person subject, as in (1) and (2):

(1) I think they are unfamiliar people.

(2) You would think they are unfamiliar people. The sentences in (1) and (2) can in turn correlate with the utterance (3) that involves anticipatory it:

(3) It seems they are unfamiliar people. In (3), anticipatory it is indirectly related to the pronoun I, since it evokes

a generalized idea of a situation that is present in the stance-taker‟s mind and that is mentioned in the subsequent clause (they are unfamiliar people).

In a number of cases the pronoun you refers to the speaker in the context

of self-reflection involving generalizations over the speaker‟s experiences, cf.:

(4) As an unashamed “romantic”, I have always been subject to

boredom. […] You feel you can‟t ignore it, can‟t take your eyes off it

(C. Wilson). In case of replacing the pronoun you by I in the given example the

resulting utterance in (5) would not be different in terms of pronominal reference:

(5) …I have always been subject to boredom. […] I feel I can‟t ignore it, can‟t take my eyes off it.

Because of the use of the first-person pronoun in (5) the narrator‟s experiences are represented in a more specific or individualized way, but in

both (4) and (5) the pronouns you and I, respectively, share the same reference. Besides, the epistemic predication you feel can be further transformed into it

seems, as in (6): (6) … I have always been subject to boredom […]. It seems you can‟t

ignore it, can‟t take your eyes off it .

Generally, the examples in (1) – (3) and (4) – (6) demonstrate that the expression of epistemic stance may involve the use of clauses with first-,

second- and third-person pronouns. At the same time, since all the three pronouns invoke the same referent, namely a stance-taker, it can be supposed

that the pronouns have a facet in their meaning which is not directly related to reference per se but which is responsible for the possibility of the pronouns‟

alternations in natural discourse. The proposed paper aims to reveal motivations for choosing the first-,

second and third-person pronoun in clauses of epistemic (I think – You would think – It seems ), perceptual (I felt as if – It was as if ) and emotional stance (I

125

am glad that – It is good that ). The study bears on data culled from English-

language fiction and involves examples of both dialogic and narrative

discourse. In a number of cases the analysis involves modification of original sentences by means of replacing pronouns in stance-clauses. The possibility of

such modifications was verified with native English speakers.

Theoretically, the paper develops two assumptions posited in cognitive linguistics research: (i) meanings of linguistic items (including personal

pronouns) are structured at two levels of mental representation: on the one hand, meanings evoke conceptual archetypes rooted in the experience of

perceptual and mental categorization of the designated entity; on the other hand, meanings are specified in discourse in the processes of mental construal which

in turn involve the choice of one item over other possible alternatives [7; 9]; (ii)

meanings of all linguistic items emerge in the acts of communicative interaction

throughout the processes of on-line meaning construction [3; 12].

The analysis of the pronouns I and you with reference to the processes of

meaning construction gives grounds to the assumption, formulated in

Langacker [8, p.183 – 185], that – alongside refere nce per se – these pronouns invoke a particular conceptual content. It is shown that this content is structured

in actual discourse and is grounded in the context of interaction between the speaker and the hearer, as well as in the acts of profiling the person referred to

and either objectified (on-stage) or subjectified (off-stage) construal of the referent.

Langacker‟s interpretation of personal pronouns as items associated with

a certain conceptual content is compatible with an approach to pronouns

elaborated in Seliverstova [2]. Specifically, contrary to the traditional

understanding of pronouns as items which lack any permanent meaning,

Seliverstova develops E. Benveniste‟s idea [1] that pronouns represent a special

type of linguistic signs whose function consists not only in indication of a

person‟s role in the act of speech but in representing the speaker or the hearer as

an individual taken in his uniqueness. With reference to the pronouns I and you

in Russian, Seliverstova shows that the basic function of pronouns consists in

indicating a particular construal of a participant of a situation. It is shown in Benveniste [1] that the speaker‟s construal in

communication is directly related to the use of I and you as items referring to

the current act of speech in the first place. It is pointed out that this very act of

speech creates that special reality in which the referents of I and you are construed in their uniqueness and close mutual interrelatedness.

However, cases of alternations of personal pronouns to be further analyzed in this study give grounds for the supposition that different pronouns evoke non-identical cognitive-discourse formats of reality which in turn provide different frameworks for the construal of „self‟.

126

The distinction between I and you with respect to the format of reality is

most frequently manifested in cases when the pronouns are used either with

cognitive verbs like think, believe or with the verb say in the sense of cognitive categorization. Illustrative in this respect is the following example of inner

speech: (7) He could see the beaks tucked into the feathers. „ You‟d think they‟d

be feeding,‟ he said to himself, „not just standing in that way‟ (D. Du Maurier). Since the author of the above utterance is reflecting upon his own

perception of the described event (birds flocking together), the pronoun you unambiguously refers to him as a stance-taker. This leads to the possibility of replacing you with I without any change of reference, as in (8):

(8) He could see the beaks tucked into the feathers. „ I think they are

feeding,‟ he said to himself . However, with you and I having identical reference in (7) and (8), the

clausal predicates are different in the two examples. The predicate is modal in the case of you (would think), whereas with I, the predicate is expressed by the

verb think alone. Besides, the use of you with the verb think without a modal would affect the grammatical acceptability of the resulting utterance:

(9) *You think they‟d be feeding . On the contrary, the pronoun I can collocate with both a modal and a non-

modal predicate, as in (10) and (11):

(10) I would think they‟d be feeding . (11) I think they are feeding. The demonstrated collocational constraint on using you in the context of

self-reference can be explained by the fact that the second-person pronoun places its referent in the format of virtual, or mentally represented, rather than actual reality.

Given the plausibility of this assumption, the example in (12) below, involving the use of all the pronouns – anyone, he (that refers to the stance-taker) and you – in collocation with modal predicates, may seem t o present a counter-example:

(12) For that matter, could anyone say that Mrs. Stoner was a bad

person? No. He could not say it himself, and he was no freak. She had her points, Mrs. Stoner. She was clean. […] She had her other points, to be sure –

her faults, you might say. She snooped – no mistake about it (J.F. Powers).

In the given fragment of inner speech, the predication he could not say cannot be transformed into he did not say without affecting the sense of the

utterance. The same would happen in case of replacing you might say with you say. The discussed constraint on the removal of modals can be explained with

reference to the fact that the verb say can express stance-taking only in collocation with a modal. However, even with this prerequisite for meaning

realization considered, there is still an important distinction between you and

127

other (referentially used) pronouns. In the given example, the pronoun he,

which refers to the stance-taker, obviously correlates with the pronoun anyone.

In this correlative pair, he refers to a specific individual, whereas anyone

evokes any possible individual within the format of actual reality. On the

contrary, the pronoun you projects the stance-taker’s ‘self’ onto the plane of

virtual reality. This results in the constraint on the pronoun‟s correlation with

items that have the opposite function, namely, the function of reference to either

a definite (e.g. I or he) or indefinite individual (someone, anyone) in the sphere

of actual reality. In accordance with this constraint, the transform of the clause

with you, given in (13), cannot be considered grammatical: (13) She had her other points, to be sure – her faults, *as you or anyone

might say. The format of virtual reality evoked by you as an item referring to a

stance-taker to some extent creates the basis for communicative interaction in a dialogue, as in (14):

(14) Christopher Dawe held up a hand. “Just a moment. Te ll me how he moves. […] How he moves. Walks, for example.” “Fluidly,” Angi e said. “ You could say he almost glides” (D. Lehane).

In (14), the pronoun you is involved both in the evocation of virtual reality as a domain of the speaker‟s self-projection and in the act of reference to

the hearer as another participant of the speech event. This results in the emergence of common ground for the on-going dialogue where the speaker and

the hearer can share the expressed epistemic stance. The cooperative act of

stance sharing could hardly occur in case of replacing you with I, as in (15):

(15) I could say he almost glides. The use of I in (15) signals the act of reference to actual reality, which in

turn excludes the possibility for the hearer to share the expressed epistemic positioning.

Considering the context of dialogic interaction involving the use of you in (14), it seems necessary to suggest – by way of spe cification – that the pronoun

you evokes a virtualized (rather than fully virtual) format of reality. In this

kind of reality there is a possibility of integrating the image of the speaker in the

plane of virtuality and the hearer as an individual belonging to the actual speech act.

The contrast between actuality and virtuality appears to be more pronounced in cases that involve alternations of constructions with first-person

subject (I) and clauses with anticipatory it. It should be noted that in English the epistemic state of belief and certainty can be expressed by clauses with both

referential subjects and non-referential it, cf.: (16) I am convinced / I believe that – It is my conviction / belief that.

128

On the contrary, the state of knowledge or doubt can be expressed in the active voice only by clauses with a referential subject (such as I), not by sentences with it:

(17) I know / doubt that – * It is my knowledge / doubt that. The mentioned constraint is caused by the fact that we have knowledge or

doubts about some actual states of affairs. The factivity of what we know or

doubt about is in turn established on the part of a specific individual. On the

contrary, our convictions or beliefs are related to virtual models of situations, or, in other words, mental images that can be designated by it.

The above said implies that accentuation of the stance-taker‟s epistemic

stance would involve the use of a clause with a referential subject, whereas a clause headed by anticipatory it would invoke a generalized representation of

the epistemic stance in question, cf.: (18) “But in recent weeks we have become convinced that we are facing

something far more dangerous than a curse. It is our conviction that we have

disturbed the sleep of forces that once dominated the earth …” (C. Wilson). The discussed differentiation between actual and virtual reality activated

through alternations of I and it, respectively, frequently involves making a distinction between two types of cognitive events: making a specific

reference in the sphere of actual reality and the act of identification in the

sphere of mentally construed virtual reality. Illustrative in this respect is the example in (19):

(19) That evening … I … was glad to talk. Even the subject of excavation s had ceased to be unbearable to me, and it gave me pleasure to tell him the

“inside story” of our work (C. Wilson). In (19), the clauses I was glad and It gave me pleasure alternate as

expressions referring to similar emotional states. However, it is the clause with I that focuses on reference to the speaker in the actual format, which in turn enables the possibility of a specifying question like the one in (20):

(20) Were you glad to talk that evening? On the contrary, a similar question with reference to the content of the

utterance with anticipatory it would hardly sound natural: (21) Did it give you pleasure to tell him the “inside story” o f your work? The question in (21) sounds unnatural because anticipatory it presupposes

availability in the speaker‟s mind of a generalized virtual image of the situation designated by the pronoun, as well as mental access to the state of affairs described in the infinitival clause.

A more complicated case for interpretation is presented by cases of alternations in the expression of emotional stance in cases like (22). Here the alternatively used clauses do not lend themselves to specifying questions:

(22) It was interesting … to note that Fleischman‟s obviou s tenderness

for her … communicated itself to Reich and myself. … I should also note that

129

the lust experienced by Reich and myself was not a usual male desire to possess a strange female (C. Wilson, The Mind Parasites, 147).

The demonstrated alternation of It was interesting to note and I should (also) note invites questions about the specifics of conceptual content conveyed

by the pronouns and the nature of mental construal operations involved in the speaker‟s self-construal as a stance-taker.

The analyzed examples have shown that the choice of I, you or it is

motivated by the mental placing of „self‟ in the fo rmat of actual, virtualized or

virtual reality and by objectified or subjectified representation of „self‟ in

discourse. To use Langacker‟s terminology, it can be said that the occurrence of

you or it signals the stance-taker‟s positioning off-stage and the subjective

construal of „self‟, whereas the use of I presupposes the self-positioning on-

stage. This distinction in the self-construal leads to the question of how the

contrast is related to the differentiation of conceptual archetypes associated with

pronouns. It is noted in Langacker [6] that an important distinction in English

(as well as in a number of other languages) is that between two conceptual

archetypes – participant and setting. It is shown t hat the notion of participant

invokes an idea of individual or entity that plays a certain role in a clausal

event. By contrast, the conceptual archetype “setti ng” is not construed as a

separate entity, but rather, as a region having some temporal and/or spatial

expanse. It is argued in a number of Langacker‟s studies [8, p. 179 – 180; 9, p.

451 – 453; 10] that English anticipatory it invokes the conceptual archetype

“abstract setting”, i.e. a generalized array of cir cumstances that have temporal

and/or spatial expanse. This gives grounds to assume that contrastively to it, the

pronouns I и you represent a stance-taker as a participant of epistemic or

emotional positioning.

The distinction between participant and abstract setting as two varieties of

conceptual archetypes is fairly obvious. Whereas participant is a discrete

dynamic entity, setting represents a region (including a mental region) which

provides a framework for certain content. In accordance with this contrast, a

clause with the pronoun I, associated with a participant, fits in a context where

an individual is represented in a dynamic way. By contrast, a clause with the

setting-subject it is more appropriate in indicating the focus of attention. Thus,

the pronoun I in (23) occurs in the context of intensive mental activity that is

emphasized through the use of the quantifier more: (23) But the more I considered the evidence (which is too complex to

detail here), the more I was inclined to believe that the figurines helped to explain how Karatepe remained an island of culture long after the fall of the Hittite empire (C. Wilson).

On the contrary, the clause It seemed likely, which is similar in meaning to I was inclined to believe, contributes to the indication of attention focus, or abstract setting (it), that receives explication in the subsequent clause:

130

(24) As to the reference to Tudaliyas, another Hittite ruler of about 1700 B.C., it again seemed likely that the Hitties had derived some of their religious rituals from the proto-Hattians (C. Wilson).

Dynamic and static construals associated with the participant – setting distinction can also be reflected in the contrast of perceptual stance clauses exemplified in (25):

(25) I felt as if / as though – It was as if. Clauses with the pronoun I naturally co-occur with temporal expressions

referring to a more or less objectified point or period of time, which contributes to a dynamic representation of perceptual stance-taking, as in (26):

(26) But half an hour later I felt as though my mind was supporting a

load the size of Mount Everest (C. Wilson). On the contrary, a mental image, or abstract setting invoked by it in the

expression of perceptual stance is not located in a temporal sequence, but rather, gets tied up to a certain point in time, internally experienced by the stance-taker, cf.:

(27) Then, suddenly, it was as if we fell into step with Reich (C. Wilson).

Whereas the pronouns I и it display a clear-cut distinction between participant and setting, the differentiation between I and you is not so obvious, since both pronouns invoke the same conceptual archetype “participant”.

On the other hand, though I and you both evoke a participant, the construal of this conceptual archetype is not entirely equivalent with the two pronouns. Thus, clauses of epistemic stance headed by you can be passivized

without considerable losses in the meaning expressed, cf.: (28) You would think – it could be supposed / assumed ; you could say –

it could be said. The given clauses of epistemic stance differ mainly in the manner of the

stance-taker‟s self-reference – explicit in the cas e of you and implicit in the case of passive constructions with it. At the same time, both types of clauses are

similar in that they imply a non-agentive construal of the stance-taker. This kind of construal puts a constraint on the extension of a passive clause through

the use of a by- complement: (29) *it could be assumed by many researchers; *it could be said by

anyone. A clause headed by you cannot be extended, in turn, through the use of

yourself – a reflexive that could point to active involveme nt of a stance-taker in establishing his epistemic positioning:

(30) *you yourself would think; *you could (not) say it yourself. On the contrary, clauses of epistemic stance with the pronoun I (or, as

shown earlier with reference to (12), the pronoun‟s analogues in free indirect discourse) imply an agentive construal of the participant, which enables the use of a reflexive, as in (31):

131

(31) I myself think; I could (not) say it myself.

Besides, the very possibility of using a reflexive alongside a personal pronoun as pointers to a stance-taker implies that an agentive construal of „self‟

is accompanied by the cognitive event of self-reference. Contrastively to this, a non-agentive construal of self invoked by you is linked up to the event of

identifying one‟s self or a potential hearer in a virtualized mental region.

As evidenced by the analyzed linguistic data, the choice of the first-,

second- and third-person pronoun in stance clauses is motivated by the

distinction in the construal of a stance-taker in three cognitive-discourse

formats: (1) the format of reality (virtual, virtualized or actual) in which a

stance-taker is mentally placed; (2) the system of conceptual archetypes that

incorporate a particular construal of an individual (agentive or non-agentive

participant vs. abstract setting); (3) a generalized representation of a cognitive

event (direct reference or identification) that is activated in association with a

referent in question.

Библиографический список 1. Бенвенист Э. Природа местоимений // Бенвенист Э. Общая

лингвистика / Общ. ред, вступ. ст. и коммент. Ю.С. Степанова. – Изд. 4-е. – М.: Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2010. – С. 285-291.

2. Селиверстова О.Н. Местоимения в языке и речи //

Селиверстова О.Н. Труды по семантике. – М.: Языки славянской

культуры, 2004. – С. 375-556. 3. Fauconnier G. Mappings in Thought and Language. – Cambridge:

CUP, 1997. 4. Huddleston R. English Grammar: An Outline. – Cam bridge: CUP,

1998. 5. Jespersen O. Essentials of English Grammar. – Ne w York: Henry Holt

& Co., Inc., 1933. 6. Langacker R.W. Grammatical ramifications of the setting / participant

distinction // Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. – Vol. 13. – USA: Berkeley Lin guistics Society, 1987. – P. 383-394.

7. Langacker R.W. Grammar and Conceptualization. – Berlin; New York:

Mouton de Gruyter, 2000. 8. Langacker R.W. Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns //

Radden G., Kopcke G-M., Berg T. & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction. – Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benj amins, 2007. – P. 171-187.

9. Langacker R.W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. – Oxford; New York: OUP, 2008.

132

10. Langacker R.W. On the subject of impersonals // Brdar M., Gries S.T., Fuchs M.Z. (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion. – Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjami ns, 2011. – P. 179-218.

11. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. – Harlow: Longman, 1999.

12. Radden G., Kopcke G-M., Berg T. & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction. – Amsterdam / Philadelphia: J ohn Benjamins, 2007.

В. Я. Чолан

Киев, Украина

ОДНОСОСТАВНЫЕ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ С ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКОЙ

УСТАНОВКОЙ ПРЕСКРИПЦИИ

Статья посвящена проблеме лингвистической экстраполяции

семантических ресурсов односоставных, в частности номинативных

предложений, репрезентирующих структуры текстовых единиц с

прагматической установкой прескрипции. Свойство текстовых

конструкций экстраполировать (расширять или обогащать) собственные

семантические ресурсы значений сопряжено с синтаксической и

функциональной трансформацией в коммуникативной сфере их

приоритетного использования. Хотим уточнить, что важное понятие

коммуникативной сферы осмысливается здесь как отрасль

специализированного функционально-практического направления

коммуникативной деятельности, где регулярное сообщение и получение

определѐнного рода информации осуществляется с определѐнной целью

путѐм обязательного использования отдельного класса или корпуса

текстов.

Говоря о специализированной коммуникативной сфере, где

приоритет принадлежит корпусу текстов – носителей прескрипции

(предписания), мы имеем в виду наличие ведущих факторов,

взаимодействие которых определяет специализацию коммуникативной

деятельности в этой сфере. В свою очередь, сущность целенаправленной

коммуникативной деятельности в специализированной сфере создаѐт

предпосылки доминирования текстов с прескриптивными установками.

Среди обязательных факторов, обусловливающих сферу

специализированной коммуникации, первостепенная роль отводится

260

СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ

Александрова Ольга Викторовна – доктор филологических наук,

профессор, Московский государственный университет имени М.В.

Ломоносова (Москва); Алексеева Татьяна Сергеевна – ассистент, Санкт-Петербургский

государственный экономический университет (Санкт-Петербург);

Алѐшина Екатерина Юрьевна – кандидат исторических наук, доцент,

Пензенский государственный университет (Пенза); Барташова Ольга

Анатольевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,

Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический университет

(Санкт-Петербург); Богданова Светлана Юрьевна – доктор филологических наук, доцент,

ФГБОУ ВПО «Московский государственный лингвистический

университет» Евразийский лингвистический институт (Иркутск);

Власова Елена Евгеньевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,

Алтайский государственный технический университет им. И.И.

Ползунова (Барнаул); Воложанина Татьяна Сергеевна – кандидат филологических наук,


(Санкт-Петербург);

Воронушкина Олеся Владимировна – кандидат филологических наук,

доцент, Алтайский государственный педагогический университет

(Барнаул); Гатауллина Наталья Анатольевна – преподаватель НИУ ВШЭ (Санкт-

Петербург); Грецкая Софья Сергеевна – кандидат филологических

наук, доцент,

Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова

(Москва); Зеркина Наталья Николаевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,

Магнитогорский государственный технический университет им. Г.И.

Носова (Магнитогорск); Капитонова Марина Андреевна – магистрант, Санкт-Петербургский

государственный экономический университет (Санкт-Петербург); Киселева

Светлана Владимировна – доктор филологических наук, доцент,



Комиссарова Людмила Михайловна – кандидат филологических наук,

доцент, Алтайский государственный университет (Барнаул);

Косинова Лариса Валерьевна – преподаватель, Волгоградсикй

государственный социально-педагогический университет (Волгоград);

261

Костина Наталья Николаевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,

Магнитогорский государственный технический университет им. Г.И.

Носова (Магнитогорск);

Кочетова Лариса Анатольевна – доктор филологических наук, доцент,

Волгоградский государственный университет (Волгоград); Краснова Анна Викторовна – аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский


Кривоносов Алексей Дмитриевич – доктор филологических наук, профессор, Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический

университет (Санкт-Петербург); Кудрявцева Мария Евгеньевна – доктор филологических наук, профессор,


(Санкт-Петербург); Кузнецова Ольга Геннадьевна, преподаватель, Санкт-Петербургский

государственный университет (Санкт-Петербург); Миронова Марина Юрьевна – аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский


Митягина Вера Александровна – доктор филологических наук, доцент, Волгоградский государственный университет (Волгоград); Никулина

Ольга Валерьевна – аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический университет (Санкт-Петербург);

Новикова Элина Юрьевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Волгоградский государственный университет (Волгоград); Патов

Николай Андреевич – аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский

государственный экономический университет (Санкт-Петербург); Пиотровская Лариса Александровна – доктор филологических наук,

профессор, Российский государственный педагогический университет

им. А. И. Герцена (Санкт-Петербург);

Полякова Светлана Владимировна – кандидат филологических наук,

доцент, Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический

университет (Санкт-Петербург);

Сапронов Юрий Владимирович – аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский


Семенова Евгения Владимировна – аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский


Сергаева Юлия Владимировна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,

Российский государственный педагогический университет им. А. И.

Герцена (Санкт-Петербург);

Силка Алла Анатольевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,

Сумской государственный педагогический университет им.

А.С.Макаренко (Сумы);

262

Симоненко Наталья Юрьевна – ассистент, Волгоградский

государственный социально-педагогический университет (Волгоград);

Тимралиева Юлия Геннадьевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент,


(Санкт-Петербург); Тихомирова Екатерина Игоревна – магистрант,

Санкт-Петербургский


Федоров Денис Андреевич – кандидат социологических наук, доцент, Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический университет


Фокина Светлана Леонидовна – кандидат филологических наук,

Ивановский государственный университет; Фоменко Елена Геньевна – доктор филологических наук, профессор,

Классический приватный университет (Запорожье);

Хрисонопуло Екатерина Юрьевна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Санкт-Петербургский государственный институт культуры


Чолан Виктория Яновна – кандидат филологических наук, Институт

филологии Киевского национального университета им. Т. Шевченко

(Киев);

Шамина Елена Анатольевна – кандидат филологических наук, Санкт-

Петербургский государственный университет (Санкт-Петербург);

Шевченко Алексей Сергеевич – кандидат филологических наук, Санкт-

Петербургский государственный экономический университет (Санкт-

Петербург).

Научное издание

ЯЗЫК И КУЛЬТУРА В

ЭПОХУ ГЛОБАЛИЗАЦИИ

Сборник научных трудов по

материалам второй международной

научной конференции «Язык и

культура в эпоху глобализации»

26 марта 2015 г.

В двух частях

Часть 2

Издано в авторской редакции

Подписано в печать 20.03.15. Формат 6084 1/16.

Печ. л. 16,5. Тираж 100 экз. Заказ 237. Издательство СПбГЭУ. 191023, Санкт-Петербург, Садовая ул., д. 21.

Отпечатано на полиграфической базе СПбГЭУ

Cognitive-Discourse Formatting in the Construal of Self and Alternations of Personal Pronouns in...

Documents

Transcript of Cognitive-Discourse Formatting in the Construal of Self and Alternations of Personal Pronouns in...