The paper covers the features of anthropocentric pronouns in a communicative space of modern German language. At the present stage of development of linguistics special attention is paid to the problem of communicative roles since they more unambiguously characterize the relations within the communicative act. The category of communicative roles implies the relations of crossing/non-crossing of participants of the specified situation with participants of the speech act. In this regard the communicative and pragmatic potential of personality, seems quite interesting. The roles of the participants of a communicative process are distributed through the mirror perspective. The sphere of a speaker is presented by a personal pronoun
Keywords: Category of personalityfunctional-semantic fieldnarrativenessinteractionmirror symbolics
In the light of anthropocentric grammar the category of personality or the category of communicative roles is considered as a multidimensional set of language units characterized by field structure. A certain type of a situation and specific participants of a communicative act with all dynamics of relationship take the center stage. A speaker is that point where pragmatics and deixis coincide thus forming a special plane of reference. From communicative and pragmatic perspective, the units of a personality field are able to express the attitude of a subject of speech towards the subjects of the description situation, where “the speech subject
The problem of a functional and semantic personality field covers an urgent issue of situational and communicative conditionality of language units’ implementation. Interpretation of a language as means of communicative influence allows abstracting from traditional principles of language analysis and concentrating the attention on the issues of speech communication with the focus on interaction between a speaker and a listener in a particular communicative situation concerning personal attitude, the communication situation and a context (Derkach et al., 2014; Deppermann & Reineke, 2018; Gašová, 2019). In this regard it seems relevant to consider the communicative and pragmatic potential of
Let us address to the description of personality through communicative spaces to analyze its agents of actualization. The text of the
The subject of the paper is the communicative and pragmatic potential of
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study is to define the role of units of a functional and semantic field of a personality through the prism of egoreference, to study the features of semantization of
The features of the paper predetermined the choice of methods and approaches to linguistic analysis of the material within the system of language. In this regard the study was based on the transformation method to define the functionality of units of a functional and semantic field of a personality, which expression plane is made by personal pronouns, the method of description and generalization to carry out the consecutive analysis of these units from the point of view of their structure, as well as the narratological method to interpret the deep structure of the considered work and to identify the interrelation between a narrator and a reader.
The study made it possible to describe the possibilities of a mirror serving a rod component of a narrative structure of the
The simplest mirror effects and modifications of a mirror disclose its semiotic variety.
Being a universal reflector, the mirror is characterized by special features. It reflects the real world and creates the superreal, illusory and mirror-like world, which, on the one hand, reflects the reality, and on the other hand, transforms it. The left here becomes right and vice versa, there is a change of external and internal (the objects at the back side are now seen in the front). The mirror reality forms symmetric addition to extramirror reality. If the mirror as an optical object is modified (cloudy mirror; transparent mirror (i.e. a simple glass in certain optical conditions); concave or convex, i.e. uneven, carnival), then the world reflected in it becomes distorted (Levin, 1988; Stolovich, 1988).
Certain semiotic potentials include the fact that the mirror reflects everything visible that gets into its “field of viewing” (in correlation with the visual angle of an observer), without regard to faces, spontaneously, unintentionally and passionlessly. The psychological mechanism of reconstruction of an integral space from fragments is based on the quasi-mirror structure. One of the main features of a mirror in representation of space is its ability to cover that area of space, which is “behind” the observer, otherwise, to ensure the complete view of the “scene of action”. The reflection may also serve the model of creativity – realistic, or consciously or unconsciously deforming reality (Yampolsky, 1988; Levin, 1988).
All main types of valuable meanings are typical for a mirror. They are characterized by informative value. We also have the right to talk about the peculiar moral value of a mirror, which is demonstrated in certain life and artistic situations. It is connected with the ability to reflect without hiding anything, to be “truthful” in this sense (Stolovich, 1988). Thus, we get a special feature of a mirror – its ability “to speak”, which is the result of its sign character, the nature of semiotics (Stolovich, 1988).
Thus, the mirror, both simple and usual, is some kind of a symbol of some semantic principles of text generation and, at the same time, the text generating mechanism, a metaphor of such fundamental linguistic concept as a predicate, or a propositional function. This function is defined based on some variety of the worlds set by the deictic coordinate of the time of speaking. The mirror may reflect the actual world, but in another timepoint – in the past or in the future concerning the moment of vision, i.e. the mirror description mismatches temporary coordinates. At the same time not the world but referential identical individuals “are reflected”. The mirror is a metaphor for the semantic mechanism, which correlates the individuals from various worlds – and not simply identifies them (Zolyan, 1988).
The mirror can set certain deictic coordinates. Similar to a pronoun “I”, which defines the one who says “I” and shows every time the one whom “I” want to see. The usual mirror in itself also behaves as a pronoun “I” showing the one who is it looking in it. But this is, so to say, another “I” – “I am a twin”, “I in other world”, “I from outside” – and the last “I” (here the contextual coordinates are displaced) is already “him” (Zolyan, 1988). In this context the phenomenon of a mirror is closely connected with the understanding of the category of “another”, “outsidedness” (Bakhtin, 2002). Bakhtin (2002) considers a mirror as means of a self-objectivization, which thus makes the judgment of itself possible. The category of “another” acts as a twin of the true “I” and turns into the objects of own vision of others. Later he developed this concept by putting a mirror and contemplation of own appearance into a single semantic row with “a mirror of another consciousness”. Thus, Bakhtin developed a dialogical context of “reflectance”. Here we may refer to the interpretation of a mirror as an area of convergence of “personal” and “another” view, consciousness, word.
The history of a usual inconspicuous life of the heroine of the
The communicative space in the
The personal pronoun
«Mach mir mein Kind wieder lebendig!» (Aichinger, 1991, p. 18).
«Mach es lebendig, sonst stoß ich deine gelben Blumen um, sonst kratz ich dir die Augen aus, sonst reiß ich deine Fenster auf und schrei über die Gasse, damit sie hören müssen, was sie wissen, ich schrei» (Aichinger, 1991, p. 18).
Considering these statements in terms of direct speech in the context of the author’s statement, we may talk about the subject content of these statements.
The entire story is built on the expression of auctorial storyteller through the 2nd person personal pronoun
«Und eh du schreist, weißt du das Wiegenlied: Schlaf, Kindlein, schlaf!» (Aichinger, 1991, p. 25).
«Und eh du schreist, stürzt dich der Spiegel die finsteren Treppen wieder hinab und läßt dich gehen, laufen läßt er dich» (Aichinger, 1991, p. 26).
There are different functions a personal pronoun
«Das Kind legt beide Hände über die Augen und schaut
This point of view is confirmed by the transformational analysis:
Das Kind legt beide Hände über die Augen und schaut
This pronoun may also include the meaning of pronouns
The transformational analysis allowed revealing the meaning of a pronoun
However, this illustrates that the pronoun
Thus, the focus of a speaker towards himself and the mirror expressing the position of a speaker, its ego-presentation lies behind each case of use of anthropocentric pronouns in the
The address to artistic work in terms of text linguistics is caused by the understanding of its semantic structure through the correlation with non-textual reality.
1. In the Aichinger’s text the author talks about a magic “blind” mirror, which does not simply reflect the reality, but distorts it. The real order of things in the world and in language is perceived differently through the prism of the mirror.
2. Aichinger uses direct speech to maintain lexical, intonational, grammatical features of delivered speech thus showing its initial propositional content.
3. From the first sentence the plot of the
4. The referential shift of persons expressed by pronouns is caused by the context revealing the following specifics: first, presence or lack of a subject of the speech, an object and an addressee of the speech in superficial syntactic structure of a statement; secondly, a subject, an object, an addressee of the speech in deep syntactic structure of a sentence.
- Aichinger, I. (1991). Der Gefesselte. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
- Bakhtin, M. M. (2002). Working notes of the 1960s – early 1970s. Collected writings: in 7 volumes, vol. 6. Russian dictionaries. Moscow.
- Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S. (2018). Sprache im kommunikativen, interaktiven und kulturellen Kontext. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- Derkach, A. V., Karaziya, N. A., Kuznetsov, V. V., Plisov, E. V., Fedorov, V. V., & Khokhlova, I. N. (2014). Text as a sociocultural phenomenon. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: Kamchatka State University named after Vitus Bering.
- Gašová, Z. (2019). Der konzeptuelle Raum des Lexems ‘Zeit’ im Kontext seiner Attribuierung. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
- Jachnow, H. (1999). Die Personalität als sprachliche Universale. Funktionen und Formen. Wiesbaden.
- Khomyakova, E. G. (1992). Semantic-communicative aspects of situation types. Three aspects of grammar (based on English language). St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University.
- Kindt, T., & Müller, H.-H. (2006). Der implizite Autor. Zur Karriere und Kritik eines Begriffs zwischen Narratologie und Interpretationstheorie. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 48, 163–190.
- Kolesnikova, S. M. (2016). Functional grammar: predicativity, scaling, evaluativity: Manual. Moscow: MPSU.
- Kuzmicheva, A. A., & Matveeva, I. V. (2017). Interaction between partners of speech action in communicative space of modern German language. Kazan science, 2, 47–49.
- Levin, Yu. I. (1988). Mirror as a potential object of semiotics. Mirror. Mirror semiotics, 831, 6–24.
- Schmid, W. (2003). Narrativeness and eventivity. Modern methods of analysis of the works of art. Grodno.
- Schmid, W. (2008). Elemente der Narratologie (2nd ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
- Shatin, Yu. V. (2015). Russian literature in a semiotics mirror. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture.
- Stolovich, L. N. (1988). Mirror as semiotics, gnoseological and axiological model. Mirror. Mirror semiotics, 831, 45–51.
- Yampolsky, M. B. (1988). About the imaginary space of a movie. Mirror. Mirror semiotics, 831, 127–145.
- Zintsova, Yu. N., & Golubeva, N. A. (2015). Sociocultural approach to the assessment of functional potential of a text. Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University named after N.A. Dobrolyubov, 31, 239–242.
- Zolyan, S. T. (1988). Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who in the land is fairest of all?... (to semiotics of a magic mirror). Mirror. Mirror semiotics, 831, 32–44.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
21 January 2020
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Matveeva*, I., Zintsova, Y., & Kuzmicheva, A. (2020). Communicative And Pragmatic Potential "I" As A Subject Of A Narrative Context. In D. Karim-Sultanovich Bataev, S. Aidievich Gapurov, A. Dogievich Osmaev, V. Khumaidovich Akaev, L. Musaevna Idigova, M. Rukmanovich Ovhadov, A. Ruslanovich Salgiriev, & M. Muslamovna Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 76. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 2181-2187). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.291