Везде
The Pragmatic Principles in the Grammar Descriptions [Прагматические принципы в грамматическом описании]
Оглавление
Аннотация Оценить Содержание публикации
Библиография Комментарии
Поделиться
QR
Метрика
The Pragmatic Principles in the Grammar Descriptions [Прагматические принципы в грамматическом описании]
Аннотация
Код статьи
S294939000028973-9-1
DOI
10.18254/S294939000028973-9
Тип публикации
Статья
Статус публикации
Опубликовано
Авторы
Борисова Елена Георгиевна 
ORCID: 0000-0003-3878-5344
Аффилиация:
Государственный академический университет гуманитарных наук
Московский городской педагогический университет
Адрес: Российская Федерация, Москва
Выпуск
Номер 2 (2)
Аннотация

Текст статьи посвящен выработке средств описания грамматических категорий. В первую очередь, обращается внимание на категории, которые способны передавать номинативное, или лексическое, значение, как, к примеру, категория числа передает противопоставление значений «один» и «много».  В русской грамматике наиболее сложным случаем считаются правила употребления грамматической категории глагольного вида. Семантическая составляющая этой категории противоречива и требует большого понятийного аппарата. Но и в этом случае не все случаи реального употребления видовых форм получают непротиворечивую интерпретацию. Немало «трудных случаев» может быть проинтерпретировано с привлечением новейших понятий, связанных с моделированием речевой деятельности. В статье демонстрируется возможность использования прагматического инструментария, в частности постулатов Грайса и принципа релевантности, для описания наиболее сложных фрагментов языковой системы. В частности, делается попытка проанализировать наиболее сложные случаи употребления русского глагольного вида, который не всегда сводится к оппозиции завершенности – незавершенности действия. Имеются в виду случаи так называемой конкуренции – контекста, в котором выбор вида не связан с основными видовыми значениями, что вызывает сложности при изучении русского языка. Описываются примеры, выбор вида в которых может быть объяснен стремлением говорящего к однозначности и понятности в соответствии с прагматическими принципами. Такой подход – интерактивный, т.е. учитывающий взаимодействие говорящего и слушающего, – позволяет не только сформулировать правила выбора вида в случаях, отмеченных в практических учебниках, но и объяснить, почему правила из учебника могут не работать, не предсказывать реальное правильное употребление видовых форм.

Ключевые слова
грамматическое значение, принцип релевантности, русский глагольный вид
Классификатор
Получено
08.12.2023
Дата публикации
08.12.2023
Всего подписок
4
Всего просмотров
105
Оценка читателей
0.0 (0 голосов)
Цитировать Скачать pdf
Доступ к дополнительным сервисам
Дополнительные сервисы только на эту статью
Преимущества сервисов
100 руб. / 1.0 SU
1 1. Grammar categories make the skeleton of the language system. Their regular use makes them the most constant parts of every language. The categories differ both by means of expression (not discussed here) and by their content. The content of grammar categories can be about syntactic relations in the syntactic structure of sentences, e.g. adjectives in Latin, many Slavic and some other languages. In English such cases are rare, one can mention only personal pronouns that show the governing of predicates.
2 (1) He entered and asked me about the day after tomorrow.
3 The content of some grammar categories is semantic as the grammemes can express the meaning that can be also expressed by lexis [Chafe, 1970]. The Plural means ‘more than one’ that can be also expressed by the word many (or much or some).
4 Besides these two types that can be called syntactic and semantic categories one can mention the category of politeness which refers to pragmatics. We can announce the third type of grammar categories – the pragmatic grammar category though the situation is rather rare and we will not dwell on it further.
5 Grammar categories differ from other elements of the language system due to its obligatority nature. The grammar category is the opposition of two or more entities, while the meaning of the opposing element should be obligatory expressed. Thus in English (and in all Slavic languages) every noun should be in the plural or singular form (in Slavonic it is also accepted because of the dual nature of the element) While in Japanese the expressing of this opposition is not necessary since the idea of plurality can be expressed by means that are not regarded as grammatical.
6 Beside syntactic and semantic meanings of categories there are some cases when the activity of the speaker or the hearer plays the crucial role for the usage of grammatical markers. The grammar scholars pay attention to such categories as evidentialllity [Chafe, 1986; Guentchéva, 1996], tense and aspect. The opposing meanings of grammemes in these categories include the presence of the Speaker. The conflicting meaning is formed by the pragmatic nature. And the rules of choosing proper grammemes should include the pragmatic principles of the Speaker’s and the Hearer’s interaction [Ochs, 1996; Sperber, 1995].
7 The case of Russian Verbal Aspect is to be analyzed here.
8 2. In the cognitive model of Language [Geereaerts, 1989] the semantic grammar categories form a circle with nucleus and periphery. The nucleus is formed by the opposing meanings, the most important for the category, e.g. ‘one – many’ for the category of plurality. The rare meanings or special cases as unique elements (the Earth) or many element regarded as aggregate (sand, humanity) form periphery and their specifics can slightly vary from the principle meaning of the grammemes. Thus one can speak about the polysemy of grammar categories. It is supposed that all the meanings of grammemes can explain the usage of them in every context and predict what is necessary for the speakers, especially non-native speakers.
9 There are categories: definiteness and Tense for English, Slavic Aspect and some others that are more complicated, and the abovementioned model is not sufficient for proper choosing the necessary grammemes in many categories. This can be illustrated by the example of the Russian grammar that is traditionally regarded as the most difficult for non-native speakers [Zalizniak, 1997].
10 3. The Principle Opposition of the category of Russian Grammar Aspect is not yet revealed, though all Russian verbs belong to the Perfect (sdelat’ – to do up to the end once) or Imperfect category (delat’ – to do for some time maybe several times). Any attempts to formulate the principle (general, integral) of the category failed [Glovinskaya, 1986] though some efforts are still being made. Yet the best way to mark the relations between Aspect grammemes and the meaning expressed by this category is through particular meanings (just as particular meanings of lexemes) [Maslov, 1984]. As for the Imperfect the particular meanings are plurality of actions.
11 (2) My zakryvali etu dver’ i uxodili. – ‘We closed the door and went away.’ (often, usually, several times, progressive (continuous)
12 (3) My dolgo zakryvali slomannuyu dver’. – ‘We were closing the destroyed door for a long time.’ (constatation of the fact)
13 (4) My zakryvali etu dver’, zamok rabotal. – ‘We have closed this door once or several times – it makes no difference and everything was OK.’ (potential meaning)
14 (5) On zakryval etu dver’ esche rebenkom – ‘He (could) close the door even when he was a child.’ (and habitual)
15 (6) On zakryval etu dver vsegda. – ‘He always ‘used to’ close this door.’
16 There are concrete meanings of Perfect Aspect too so there are grammar oppositions Imp. ‘several times’ – Perf ‘once’, Imp. continuous – Perf moment (the period is regarded as finished), Imp. constatation of the fact - Perf. constatation of the fact and some others.
17 Such description of the meanings of aspect opposition gives more information than the opposition of principal meanings. That is why some linguists [Paducheva, 1996] tried to use this even when the real examples did not make it possible to correlate them to any concrete meaning, but they just proposed some additional meanings.
18 Still the number of cases where only one aspectual grammeme is possible but no meaning is expressed is rather common. They all are related to opposition of ‘fact constatation’ expressed by the both grammemes with little difference between them.
19 4. “Special / difficult cases” in Russian Aspect Description
20 The authors of the first handbooks of Russian Grammar came across the necessity of setting the rules of the usage of Perfect and Imperfect in Russian. It occurred that only small part of all speech situations related to expressing the plurality of actions or the progress, that was implied by particular meanings. Still in many other cases choosing the aspect form was not easy. So the Russian language teachers used a set of rules called ‘trudnye sluchayi’ (difficult cases) [Rassudova, 1982; Shvedova, 1984; Borisova, 2017].
21 4.1. The most frequent case mentioned in all the handbooks is ‘the preservation of the result’ for many verbs (mostly verbs of motion) using Perfective forms – the result still exists and Imperfective – that it does not exists. (Strictly speaking one should look for the result now it goes about as the rule can work in the past) [Borisova, 1997]:
22 (7) On bral (take – Imperf Past) moy planchet. – ‘He took my tablet.’ (but now it is where I had left it)
23 (8) On vzyal (take – Perf Past) moy planchet. – ‘He has taken my tablet.’ (and it is not where I had left it)
24 This opposition concerns only the verbs of motion, of changing position and a few others like, for instance, podschityvat’ – podschitat’ ‘calculate’, Verbs in Past.
25 4.2. Some rules concern Interrogative sentences with Verbs in Past. The most evident is the case with the Who-questions. Imperfective can show that the attention is paid to what happened while doing:
26 (9) Kto otkryval okno? Pozarapan podokonnik. – ‘Who opened the window? The windowsill is scratched.’
27 This rule is stronger than the previous: the Imperfective is possible if the window is open (the previous rule advises Perfective) [Rassudova, 1982; Shvedova, 1984].
28 4.3. Some Rules concern the sentences with modal markers: infinitives with modal nuances (dver’ ne zakryt’ – ‘it is impossible to close the door’ – dver’ (nam) ne zakryvat’ ‘We should not close the door’ and modal adverbs mozhno ‘you can / you may’ and niel’z’a ‘it is impossible / it is forbidden’.
29 Negative forms express the modal opposition of you cannot with Perf vs you may not with Imperf much better than positive examples. Still the difference between etu dver’ mozhno otkryt’ (you can) vs mozhno otkryvat’ (you may) can be found in texts and dialogues.
30 (10) Nu chto? Vse na meste, mozhno otplyvat (Imp)’? (Ty dumaesh my smozhem otplyt (Perf) bez vesla) (not finished) – ‘Well, all are ready. May we depart? (Do you suppose we can start without an oar?)’
31 (11) Mozhno otkryt’ okno (a permission of the teacher).
32 5. The Speakers activity in choosing grammemes
33 5.1. The structural approach in Grammar presupposes choosing the proper grammeme according to the circumstances/conditions: the noun bird is put into Pl when the meaning should be of ‘many birds’. The situation with real productive speech activity can differ, so the information about the meaning often proves to be insufficient.
34 The attention to the speech activity, namely to the pragmatic principles, revealed the possibility of using Gricean principles by the Speaker. That was demonstrated by G. Rappaport [Rappaport, 1985] in the analysis of the aspectual forms in Russian.
35 5.2. It is possible to extrapolate the usage of the pragmatic principles to the whole model of the Speech activity [Borisova, 2006]. According to these principles the Speaker always chooses the form that will be understood by the Hearer easier and that will reflect the meaning he communicates in the most precise way. For most cases there is only one grammeme that satisfies these conditions. E.g. if the Speaker wants to express the fact that there are many animals, the plural of the noun zver’ ‘animal’ is the best variant – zveri. There is another possibility here: to use the word zver’jo that denotes means the group of animals. And sometimes it can be used in some special circumstances. But in ordinary situation the plural is much more understandable so it does not even go about turning to zver’jo, the preference of zveri is evident.
36 Still sometimes two forms can concur (or two synonymic lexemes). If they both can be used to the same degree – both variants are possible. If there is a difference the variant that is less preferable would be incorrect. Also one form should be preferred to the other according to the pragmatic principles. The native speakers do that automatically while second language learners need some explicit rules.
37 5.3. The rules based on Gricean principles include the characteristics that make a form under question preferable because of its ‘understandability’. The concurrence is possible because the intended meaning cannot exactly coincide with the meanings of language entities. The lexical meaning of two lexemes can highlight two different aspects of one and the same phenomenon [Baranov, 1986]: the same weather can be called warm and slushy. In fact, both are not precise. To understand the message with the word warm the Hearer must take into consideration the season as it is warm only because it’s December. And slush is about the ground and roads while the fact that the air is warm should be also implied.
38 So the Speaker looking for the most precise way of expressing himself should take into consideration that even seemingly proper forms can express the necessary sense only with the help of implicatures. So such implicatures should be compared.
39 The procedure of comparison of possible variants of words can help define some synonyms that still sometimes cannot be replaced by one another.
40 The same principles are valid for the peculiarities of grammar. But there is an important detail: grammar categories are obligatory. As the opposition Singular-Plural is grammatical in Russian every word should be used either in Singular or in Plural. So, comparing the semantics of two or more grammemes the Speaker should not only look for the best variant to express what he wants to say but also avoid the option that is not as good, ambiguity etc.
41 As it has been, that a great number of difficulties in using grammar categories are typical for the situation where there is no necessity of expressing the meanings of grammemes however choosing one is obligatory. Thus, the so called ‘difficult’ cases are about the two factual meanings that are more or less neutral from the point of view of principal aspectual oppositions.
42 5.4. Let us have a look at choosing aspect in the situation (7) – (8), where the ‘presence of the result’ predicts the choice of the grammeme Perf. There is no necessity of expressing the meanings ‘reaching the result’ and ‘the action took place once’ typical for Perf as both aspects can express them. The meaning of the constatation of the fact that is declared to be the meaning of Imperf in these cases is expressed by the grammemes of Indicative and Past that inform that the action took place (that coincide with the meaning of constatation). So, there is no point to be expressed by the Aspect. Still its expression is obligatory.
43 In other words, the opposition Perf – Imperf is used not according to the grammatical meaning but because of the necessity to choose forms. So, it is being used according to pragmatic principles: the form should be chosen in order to be more understandable for the Hearer.
44 Let’s have a look at the situation with the tablet (7), (8). When it is not on its place (is absent) it means that the result of the action brat’/ vzyat’ ‘to take’ was achieved. Choosing between Perf and Imperf the Speaker should take into consideration that Perf expresses getting the result while Imperf only implies it (the Imperf means that the fact took place, so the result of it is very probable). That is why any sentence where the result is expressed is better with the Perf – so that the Hearer can understand it better.
45 And ‘better’ from the point of view of the pragmatic principles means ‘more correct’. So, when there is the result of the action the Perf is better, however only for some verbs.
46 The semantics of verbs is also important. The verbs meaning actions with the result (obvious as the rule) are used to express the opposition ‘the result vs no information about it’. And these words are precisely the same that are mentioned in these rules. These are verbs of motion prishel/prixodil ‘came’, vyexal/ vyezzhal ‘went out’ etc., verbs of remotion klast’/polozhit’ ‘put’, brat’/vzyat’ ‘take’ and some others. It is evident that there is no question of the result for the verbs szhech/ szhigat’ ‘burn’, razbit’/razbivat’ ‘break/shatter’ as the result is irreversible and it is always obvious. And there is no possibility to use the difference of the aspectual forms to express this meaning.
47 If it goes about other verbs Perf and Imperf are used deliberately (or it is regulated by other rules)
48 (12) Ya emu zvonil / pozvonil. – ‘I called him.’
49 The information about preservation of the result is not apparent when the result is not visible.
50 (13) My eto podschityvali. – ‘We have calculated that.’
51 It should be understood as ‘the calculation was made but we cannot find the results’.
52 If no other criteria interfere in the process of choosing proper grammemes, the difference ‘conserved result vs not conserved result’ seems to become the rule itself. Still there can be exceptions if the conditions for choosing proper grammemes change.
53 (14) Imej v vidu ja zakryval dver’ s trudom. – ‘Take into consideration that I had difficulties with closing the door.’
54 This usage of Imp differs from the ‘processual’ meaning as it shows particular actions that are necessary for this. Still it was important to demonstrate to that the problem (difficulties) was connected with the process. Therefore the Imp was preferred (still the Perf is also possible).
55 5.5. Other examples (‘difficult cases’) are more or less connected with choosing grammemes that make understanding easier. These are Who-questions with variability of aspect according to the attention of the Speaker, negative sentences where Perf. is used to deny the predicted event, some modal nuances after the word mozhno ‘you can/may’ and nel’zya ‘you cannot/ you may not’.
56 Let us describe the possible activity of the Speaker in Who-questions where there is no time indicated:
57 (15) Kto zakryl (Perf) / zakryval okno? – ‘Who closed the window?’
58 The choice of Imperf is possible when the Speaker notices what happened when somebody was closing the window. E.g. there’s a pot with flowers broken.
59 Both aspectual forms are possible. The imperfect indicates process, so it turns the attention to the process/action and when it is important for the context (when something happened during this action/process while the action was being taken place) – in this case Impferf seems to be preferable. But as soon as the context changes – Perf is better (when it is about the result of the action):
60 (16) Kto zakryl okno? Zharko. – ‘Who has closed the window? It is hot.’
61 There were some attempts to declare using Imperf here as the 1st meaning of Imperf (processual). But there are no other indications of it. E.g. the verbs with prefix pri- that is impossible for this meaning can be used in Who-questions.
62 (17) Kto prixodil v sapogax? – ‘Who had come in (dirty) boots?’
63 The special attention is often paid to sentences with modal adverbs mozhno and nel’zya. The Imperf is used to denote that the action is permitted or prohibited. As Imperf is used for marking constant, repeated actions it is evident that the permission / prohibition concerns some constant state and Imperf is better (more precise) for this sense. The Perf is used for several meanings. When it is about impossibility, Perf is better because it implies action with the result – potentially there might be some result after this action:
64 (18) Syuda mozhno zahodit’? – ‘Is it allowed to enter here.’
65 (19) Zdes’ perexodit’ nel’zya. – ‘No crossing here.’
66 (20) Ty mozhes vdet’ nitku v igolku? – ‘Can you place the thread into the needle?’
67 (21) Zdes nel’zya razvernutsya – zadenesh’ ili mashinu, ili ograzhdenie. – ‘It is impossible to turn round here – either the car or the hedge will be touched.’
68 The examples (18)–(19) mean prohibition, the (20)–(21) the possibility-impossibility of the named action. The specifics of the ‘difficult cases’ mentioned above are that the rules for them are non-obligatory. They are possible only and worth mentioning when teaching Russian grammar. But in fact, in some (or even many) contexts their usage can be prevented by the context.
69 You can use Perf for denoting permission if there are other characteristics that make Perf more preferable:
70 (22) Dumayu syuda mozhno zayti yesli nenadolgo. – ‘I suppose the entrance here (Perf) is allowed for some minutes.’
71 Here the Perf is imposed by the idea of short stay and the action is supposed to be done once, so Perf that denotes singular actions is preferred.
72 (23) Zdes’ mozhno razvorachivat’sya tol’ko ochen’ medlenno. – ‘Here it is possible to turn (Imp) the car round if you move very slowly.’
73 It is about possibility, not permission and Imperf underlines how it is to be done (slowly) and that is important. The Imperf is explained by the description of the action as a process, and this task needs Imperf.
74 So the ‘difficult cases’ are rather probable cases of usage Imperf or Perf as there are rules according to which aspects win (as a rule) in such contexts. Still some changes in context can make the opposite aspect more preferable and the ‘rules of difficult cases’ will not work.
75 6. The ‘model of comparing grammar categories’ can explain some peculiarities of their usage.
76 First of all, it is well known that beside proper and unproper (incorrect) examples there are ‘partially admitted’ sentences that can be put in some context though as a rule they look like ‘possible/ but not perfect enough’. They are marked by the sign ? (while unproper sentences are marked by *):
77 (24) Reshili zakryt’ etot vxod. – ‘The entrance was decided to be closed.’
78 (25) ? Reshili zakryvat’ etot vxod. – ‘The entrance was decided to be closed.’
79 If it goes about comparison of two variants ‘partially proper’ sentences can occur when the difference in preferability of one form is not so great and it can be ignored in some context.
80 The Perf in (24) can show the idea of the result (the entrance is closed) that may be important for the further text: the entrance is closed so there is no possibility to get to the territory through it. Still the Imperf can also mean the same situation though with the implication, that makes this variant longer and therefore worse from the point of view of clarity. So it should not be used. But in some cases, with other details that can be meant by Imperf may be important.
81 (26) Reshili zakryvat’ etot vxod, pora izbavit’sya ot lishnich problem. – ‘The entrance was decided to be closed as it is high time to get rid of undesirable problems’
82 (26) it is important that the action should be taken, so there are implications from the meaning of process indicated by Imperf (the process – it has its beginning) that is comparable with other implications from Perf (the action will be completed so it should begin). In other words, for (26) both aspectual grammemes are possible. However, choosing aspect like this seems to be rare that is why the possibility of Imp looks strange. Still, it is not prohibited, and one cannot mark (26) with *.
83 Conclusion
84 Using lexemes and grammemes for expressing meanings intended by the Speaker is determined not only by the meaning of these units but also by the context, possible inherences etc. [Borisova, 2021]. The Speaker choses the forms that are more convenient for the Hearer, i.e. can be easier and more exactly understood. That fact can be implicated from the Gricean Postulates that prescribe friendliness.
85 The rules of Russian Verbal Aspect do no predict all the situations of using aspectual forms so one should take into consideration some other factors. And they are mostly determined by the principles mentioned above that help to choose proper forms – Perfect or Imperfect when the difference is not crucial. The most common cases can be listed; they are described in the handbooks of Russian as ‘difficult cases’.
86 Choosing more convenient form depends on the meanings of both aspects and also on the implications that are necessary for the Hearer to understand the Speaker’s intentions concerning not only one utterance but the following text too. As it is shown in the article the context of the utterance can make some rare variants of using Perf or Imperf proper in some sentences proper due to the intentions of the Speaker to be relevant in this situation.
87 So pragmatic principles prescribe taking into consideration the activity of the Speaker intending to make his speech clearer and more precise in choosing proper grammems in doubtful situations.

Библиография

1. Баранов А.Н., Паршин П.Б. Языковые механизмы вариативной интерпретации действительности как средство воздействия на сознание // Роль языка в средствах массовой коммуникации. М.: ИНИОН, 1986.

2. Борисова Е.Г. Интерактивный подход в лингвистике: пределы применимости // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. Труды международной конференции «Диалог» (Бекасово, 31 мая – 4 июня 2006 г.). М.: РГГУ, 2006. С. 84-88.

3. Борисова Е.Г. Интерактивный подход к описанию лексики и грамматики. М.: Флинта, 2021.

4. Борисова Е.Г. Конкуренция в речепорождении: что определяет выбор граммем и лексем в «трудных случаях»? // Конкуренция в языке и коммуникации / отв. ред. Л.Л. Федорова. М.: РГГУ, 2017. С. 92-102.

5. Борисова Е.Г. Проблема выбора вида (прагматическая точка зрения) // Труды аспектологического семинара филологического факультета МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Т. 3. / отв. ред. – М.Ю. Черткова. М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1997.

6. Гловинская М.Я. Теоретические проблемы видо-временной семантики русского глагола: дисс. … д-ра филол. наук. М.: МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, 1986

7. Зализняк А.А., Шмелев А.Д. Лекции по русской аспектологии // Slavistische Beiträge. Bd. 353. München: Sagner, 1997.

8. Маслов Ю.С. Очерки по аспектологии. Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1984.

9. Падучева Е.В. Семантические исследования: Семантика времени и вида в русском языке. Семантика нарратива. М: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1996.

10. Рассудова О.П. Употребление видов глагола в современном русском языке. 2-е изд. М.: Русский язык, 1982.

11. Шведова Л.Н. Трудные случаи функционирования видов русского глагола (к проблеме конкуренции видов). М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1984.

12. Chafe W. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In: W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986, pp. 261-272.

13. Chafe W. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

14. Geeraerts D. Introduction: Prospectus and Problems of Prototype Theory. In: Linguistics, 1989, N 27(4), pp. 587-612.

15. Guentchéva Z. Le médiatif en Bulgare. In: L’énonciation médiatisée, ed. by Guentchéva Z. Louvrain: Peeters, 1996, pp. 47-70. (На французском языке)

16. Ochs E., Schegloff E., Thompson S. Interaction and Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

17. Rappaport G. Aspect and Modality in Contexts of Negation. In: M. Flier & A. Timberlake (eds.) The scope of Slavic aspect. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1985, pp. 194-223.

18. Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

Комментарии

Сообщения не найдены

Написать отзыв
Перевести