Moscow: Flinta, In Russ. Review of I. Lysakova Krasina, Marina L. Moscow, Russia, 18—19 April Годдарду и А. Вежбицкой [] Минск, Беларусь Синтактика, когниция и композицион- ная семантика Москва, Россия Контекстуальность в русском языке Пищальникова В. Москва, Россия Интерпретация ассоциативных данных как проблема методологии психолингвистики Челябинск, Россия Aрхитектоника светлого будущего в зарубежных военно-публицистических дискурсах периода второй мировой войны Астана, Казахстан , Клушина Н.
Москва, Россия , Тахан С. Астана, Казахстан Медиатизация культуры в дискурсе современных казахстанских медиа Челябинск, Россия Лингвопрагматические и жанрово- стилистические особенности репрезентации чемпионата мира по футболу г. Москва, Россия Гастрономическая лекси- ка как одна из особенностей нигерийского варианта английского языка Mendzheritskaya Москва, Россия Naming: What? Рецензия на коллективную монографию «Номинация в разных коммуникативных сферах» под ред.
Анненковой и Е. Карлтонский университет, Оттава, Медиалингвистика: новые подходы и решения. Рецензия на словарь-справочник под ред. Дускаевой «Медиалингвистика в тер- минах и понятиях». Средства массовой информации в социолингвистической перспективе. Рецензия на монографию И.
Лысаковой «Социолингвисти- ческое исследование советской прессы: теория и практика». Герцена, Феномен языка в парадигмах функцио- нальной семантики и лингвосемиотики V Новиковские чтения.
Москва, 18—19 апреля г. Bakhtin to those by the formal semanticist Donald Davidson. Questions and methods used in both of these research traditions lead to two radically different understandings of reported speech. It also motivates an alternative approach to reported speech advocated by the current author and others that is criticised by Goddard and Wierzbicka The article further seeks to rehabilitate the analysis of Wierzbicka , which Goddard and Wierzbicka partially reject.
Whereas Wierzbicka treats direct and indirect speech as constructions of English, Goddard and Wierzbicka elevate the opposition to a universal, which belies the cultural sensitivity to semantic variation the authors display in other work. It remains a highly original study whose implications are yet to fully impact research on reported speech. Keywords: reported speech, dialogism, Valentin N.
Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 3 , — Russian Journal of Linguistics. В рамках лингвоантропологической традиции его основной посыл часто смешивается с «ролями говорящего» Э. Гоффмана, а в своей недавней публикации К. Годдард и А. Вежбицкая объединяют идеи, которые они приписывают В. Волошинову и М. Бахтину, с идеями представителя формаль- ной семантики Д. Высказывается мысль о том, что изучение косвенной речи преследует две основные цели, одна из которых восходит к Фреге, а вторая — к Бахтину. Вопросы и методы, связанные с этими традициями, ведут к двум радикально различным пониманиям косвенной речи.
Цель статьи — реабилитировать анализ Вежбицкой , от которого Годдард и Вежбицкая частично отказываются. Рассматривая прямую и непрямую речь как английские конструкты, они, тем не менее, поднимают это понятие до универсального уровня, что вступает в противоречие с понятием культурной сенситивности относительно семантических вариаций, о котором они пишут в других работах.
Ключевые слова: передача чужой речи, диалогизм, В. Волошинов, М. Бахтин, Г. The implica- tions of how we answer these questions are surprisingly far-reaching. Russian Journal of Linguistics, , 23 3 , — Wierzbicka demonstrates that, contrary to traditional accounts in Transfor- mational Generative Grammar, constructions as in 2 are not simply derived from those in 1.
Rather, the distinction between the two constructions rests in the semantic effect the current speaker intends to achieve. The broader question of how reported speech, exemplified by direct and indirect speech clauses, relates to other linguistic expressions has deep roots in the philosophy of language. They explicitly present their definitions of direct and indirect speech as an alternative to a definition proposed in Spronck a , which was developed further in Spronck and Spronck and Nikitina The discussion motivates the need I perceive for an alternative to the lexical approach Goddard and Wierzbicka advocate.
The current paper is primarily a response to the longer, earlier paper but may also be read as a reply to Goddard and Wierzbicka where points are addressed that are relevant to both Goddard and Wierzbicka and Goddard and Wierzbicka My main aim is to demon- strate that the uniqueness of the Bakhtinian position is consistently downplayed in the literature, and that Goddard and Wierzbicka and Goddard and Wierzbicka are no exception. In section 2. My main point is that while Goddard and Wierzbicka purport to speak for the Bakhtinian position, their concern is mostly with the Fregean objective of qualify- ing the relation between the words used in reported speech and the world, whereas the Bakhtinian account is about how the form of a reported speech expression may reflect complex social relations between the current speaker, the addressee and the reported speaker.
For the Fregean approach and Goddard and Wierzbicka this opposition is a binary distinction between saying something about the words of a reported speaker direct speech and saying something about what the reported speaker means indirect speech. For the Bakhtinian approach the distinction between direct and indirect speech is relevant for an entirely different reason.
Direct and indirect speech and the many intermediate strategies languages may have are different structural ways of explicitly making other voices heard. From the Bakhtinian perspective, the opposition between direct and indirect speech is only relevant in the sense that it illustrates how the speaker can structurally signal other voices: direct speech displays the voice of the reported speaker as if the current, reporting speaker reflects it fully cf. This idea is not addressed by Goddard and Wierzbicka , , or Knight , on whose analysis they rely for the Australian language Bunuba.
Section 4, finally, forms a brief discussion and conclusion. Russian Journal of Linguistics, , 23 3 , — 2. Philosophical foundations: reported speech as a problem of reference, and as grammar of dialogue 2. It is quite clear that in this way of speaking words do not have their customary referents but designate what is usually their sense. In order to have a short expression, we will say: In re- ported speech, words are used indirectly or have their indirect referents.
Exceptions are to be expected when the whole sentence or its part is direct or indirect quotation [ In direct quotation, a sentence designates another sentence, and in indirect quotation a thought. Quine is the first author to discuss this distinction using the labels de dicto and de re.
Banfield uses the latter notion. Also note that reported speech constructions frequently express types of mental processes other than speech, such as thought or intention. What this literature largely agrees on, however, is that Frege indeed correctly identifies why reported speech presents a problem for linguistic analysis: it atypically does not allows speakers to say something about the world, but can receive de dicto interpretations. It can be about how words are said. Kuipers , although see Cresswell and Hawn This is a mistake. The fundamental idea of Dialogism is that all actions and utterances are inherently interactive.
They respond to and anticipate other actions and utterances and are therefore always shaped by imagined dialogue. The loudness, the register, the length, and even the meaning of what I say is shaped by how I expect you to receive it, and how you have talked to me in the past.
- Кипр - информация о стране, туры, курорты.
- агентство знакомств отзывы Никосия.
- Туры в отель.
- Частная практика.
Nothing in the dialogic conceptualisation of language is ever exempt from being intersubjective or interpersonal. In this respect, a direct speech sentence, as in 1 , is no different from any other utterance. What makes the direct speech construction 1 different is that we can actually see that this sentence has a dialogic nature, because it has the form of a dialogic exchange. Reported speech is salient because it demonstrates its dialogic nature in a way that allows us to study it with relatively conventional linguistic means, as a linguistic form.
Like Newtons anecdotal apple, reported speech is a symptom, it represents an instance of a much broader phenomenon, viz.
Strh1t382021
This is where the Bakhtinian approach to reported speech is truly unique. Russian Journal of Linguistics, , 23 3 , — nov , Direct speech is inherently de dicto because, as a structural representation of dialogue, it aims to represent the position of the reported speaker. Indirect speech can be interpreted as de re because, as a structural representation of dialogue, it aims to represent the position of the perceiving, current speaker. Positioning Wierzbicka and Goddard and Wierzbicka among the Fregean and Bakhtinian traditions How do the definitions of direct and indirect speech Goddard and Wierzbicka propose relate to the traditions sketched above?
Sandler , The objections to this representation put forward in this section apply to both. He does not make the same assertion that Galileo did. However, as indicated in section 2. This has not proven an insightful variable in the analysis of reported speech, see Vandelanotte , —30 for discussion. Russian Journal of Linguistics, , 23 3 , — of his analysis. The de re interpretation in indirect speech is a structurally reflected expression of transferring to the voice of the current speaker No aspect of 3 or 4 reflects the Bakhtinian approach.
The main argument that Goddard and Wierzbicka put forward for this far-reaching hypothesis is that a definition of reported speech that makes use of the semantic prime SAY is clearer and simpler than definitions proposed in the literature that do not, like Spronck a. Unnecessary obscurity is an offence too often committed in academia and in cross- cultural communication, and Goddard and Wierzbicka are right to call attention to this. What examples such as 5 indicate is that Ungarinyin makes a distinction between the meanings SAY and THINK which, as per Wierzbicka , 50 could therefore still be semantic primes and the syntactic structure used for reported speech also see Spronck b.
On the basis of these and other observations Spronck and Nikitina argue that reported speech should be analysed as a syntactic construction in its own right, more on a par with epistemic expressions i. Under this assumption, whether a reported speech construction expresses a uni- versal meaning and whether all languages have lexemes that can express, e. What is more, it is an entirely unmotivated and unnecessary step for the purpose of arguing that the notion of SAY can be understood in all cultures.
And it is an outright regressive step with respect to valuing cross-linguistic variation. For this reason, Spronck a seeks to characterise reported speech using more general grammatical meanings, such as evidentiality and modality also see Spronck , Spronck and Nikitina I fully accept that these definitions of reported speech may be simplified and improved, and am grateful for Goddard and Wierzbicka , to engage in debate around them.
But these definitions aim to examine the Bakhtinian hypothesis that the structure of reported speech can bring us closer to understanding how dialogue shapes grammar. Given the observation that Bakhtininan ideas about addressivity are reflected in more types of grammatical structures than is commonly acknowledged in language description and typology cf.
Частная практика —
Evans, Bergqvist, and San Roque , I believe that such a research programme has value, alongside lexical approaches like Goddard and Wierzbicka espouse. None of them bear any responsibility for what appears here, but I am grateful for the errors they enabled me to take out. Attitudes Toward Quotation. Bakhtin, Mikhail Edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas. Banfield, Ann Berlin: Lehmanns. Paris: Droz. Burge, Tyler Referring de Re. Oxford etc. Cappelen, Herman, and Ernest Lepore Capuano, Antonio The Ground Zero of Semantics. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 22 35 : 81— Cresswell, James, and Allison Hawn Davidson, Donald On Saying That.
Synthese 19 1 : — De Brabanter, Philippe Context, — Dordrecht etc. Erdinast-Vulcan, Daphna, and Sergeiy Sandler Bakhtin and His Circle.
Все новости
Language and Cognition, — Frege, Gottlob Sense and Reference. The Philosophical Review 57 3 : — Geurts, Bart, and Emar Maier Quotation in Context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics — Gladkova, Anna, and Tatiana Larina Anna Wierzbicka, Words and the World.
- Евгения Конжур | ВКонтакте.
- быстрые знакомства Никосия рейтинг.
- VOX POPULI.
- знакомства девушки ищут парней Ларнака.
Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 3 : — Goddard, Cliff Cognitive Linguistics 14 2—3 : — Goddard, Cliff, and Anna Wierzbicka In Capone, Alessandro et al. Linguistic Typology 23 1 : — Russian Journal of Linguistics, , 23 3 , — Goddard, and Routley Use, Mention and Quotation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 1. Goffman, Erving Semiotica 25 1—2 : 1— Forms of Talk.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, Charles Interactive Footing. Cambridge etc. Gutzmann, Daniel, and Erik Stei Quotation Marks and Kinds of Meaning.