Functional and semantic characters of an address in Ukrainian and French

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Functional and semantic characters of an address in Ukrainian and French

Korolova Tetiana

State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical

University named after K.D. Ushynsky”

Nadiia Demianova

Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University

The vocative function of an address being the basic one is supplemented and modified by a number of other functions actualized in communication, i.e. the phatic one (establishing and developing the contact with the addressee), the status one (reflecting the status responsibility of the communicants), the emotional and attitudinal one (characterizing the addressee and the attitude of the speaker towards the uttered information). Such modification explains the polyfunctional character of the address in communication.

All units of address, just like the components of the addressing functional field, are polysemantic and polysemy comprises every type of an address. According to the communicative tasks the following functions can be stated within the vocative one: nominative (naming the addressee), deixis (identifying the addressee), vocative proper (attracting the addressee's attention).

The field model of addresses' semantic structures allows to research standard and nonstandard vocatives. The standard addresses form the nucleus of the semantic field under research and characterize stability of their application in one of the above-mentionedfunctions.

Nonstandard vocative lexemes (1 % of the total amount of the experimental material) can play the role of an address under certain circumstances. They form semantically heterogeneous (conditioned by a situation) group, located in thepe- riphery area of the semantic field of addresses.

The addresses that include anthroponyms form the most widely used group (64,5 % in Ukrainian and 68,1 % in French), the second place belongs to the addresses with appellatives (34,6 % and 29,9 %, correspondingly). As to the composition of appellatives in the status and role addresses they comprise 36,4 % in Ukrainian and 34,9 % in French. Attitudinal addresses reach 63 % and 65,1 %, correspondingly.

Key words: addresses, functional and semantic peculiarities, Ukrainian and French languages, vocatives.

ФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНО-СЕМАНТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ ОБРАЩЕНИЯ В УКРАИНСКОМ И ФРАНЦУЗСКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ

Королёва Татьяна Михайловна¹

Государственное учреждение “Южноукраинский национальный

педагогический университет имени К. Д. Ушинского”, Одесса, Украина

Демьянова Надежда Александровна

Одесский национальный университет имени И. И. Мечникова

Вокативная функция обращения, будучи базовой, дополняется и модифицируется рядом других функций, которые актуализируются в процессе коммуникации: фатической (установление и поддержание контакта с адресатом), статусной (отражающей отношения между коммуникантами), эмоционально-оценочной (характеризующей адресата и отношение говорящего к информации). Данный факт объясняет полифункцио- нальный характер обращения в процессе коммуникации.

Все единицы обращения, так же, как и компоненты функционального поля обращения, являются полисемантичными, полисемия присуща любому виду обращения. В зависимости от коммуникативной задачи в пределах вокативной функции могут быть выделены следующие:номинативная (номинация адресата) функция, дейктическая (указание адресата), собственно вокативная (привлечение внимания адресата).

Полевая модель семантических структур обращений позволяет выделить стандартные и нестандартные вокативы. Стандартные обращения образуют ядро исследуемого семантического поля и отличаются стабильностью функционирования в одной из выше названных функций.

Нестандартные вокативные лексемы (составляющие 1 % от общего количества материала исследования) могут выполнять функцию обращения в определенных условиях. Они образуют гетерогенную (обусловленную ситуацией) группу на периферии семантического поля обращений.

В пределах стандартной лексики наиболее репрезентативна группа обращений с антропонимами (64,5 % в украинском и 68,1 % во французском языках), второе место занимают обращения с аппелятивами (34,6 % и 29,9 % соответственно). Доля статусных и ролевых обращений составляет 36,4 % в украинском и 34,9 % во французском языках, доля оценочных -- 63 % и 65,1 % соответственно.

Ключевые слова: обращения, функционально-семантические особенности, украинский и французский языки, вокативы.

Функцюнально-семангичш особливості звертання в українській та французькій мовах

Корольова Тетяна Михайлівна

Державний заклад “Південноукраїнський національний педагогічний

університет імені к. Д. ушинського”, одеса, україна

Дем'янова Надія Олександрівна

Одеський національний університет імені І. І. Мечникова

Вокативна функція звернення, будучи базовою, доповнюється і модифікується низкою інших функцій, які актуалізуються в процесі комунікації: фатичною (встановлення та підтримання контакту з адресатом), статусною (яка відбиває відносини між комунікантами), емоційно-оцінною (що характеризує адресата і ставлення мовця до інформації). Цей факт пояснює поліфункціональний характер звернення в процесі комунікації.

Всі одиниці звернення, так само, як і компоненти функціонального поля звернення, є полісемантичними, полісемія властива будь-якому виду звернення. Залежно від комунікативного завдання в межах вокативної функції можуть бути виділені наступні: номінативна функція (номінація адресата), дейктична (зазначення адресата), власне вокативна (залучення уваги адресата).

Польова модель семантичних структур звернень дозволяє виділити стандартні і нестандартні вокативи. Стандартні звернення утворюють ядро досліджуваного семантичного поля і відрізняються стабільністю функціонування в одній з вище названих функцій. Нестандартні вокатив- ні лексеми (які складають 1 % від загальної кількості матеріалу дослідження) можуть виконувати функцію звернення у певних умовах. Вони утворюють гетерогенну (обумовлену ситуацією) групу на периферії семантичного поля звернень.

В межах стандартної лексики найбільш репрезентативна група звернень з антропонімами (64,5 % в українській та 68,1 % у французькій мовах), друге місце займають звернення з апелятивами (34,6 % та 29,9 % відповідно). Частка статусних і рольових звернень складає 36,4 % в українській та 34,9 % у французькій мовах, частка оцінних -- 63 % та 65,1 % відповідно.

Ключові слова: звернення, функціонально-семантичні особливості, українська та французська мови, вокативи.

functional semantic address

The research is aimed at the study of the address functional and semantic characteristics in heroes' speech of Ukrainian and French novels.

Modern linguistics deals with a number of problems that involve the address used in different spheres: culturology [4; 8; 11; 13], cognitive studies [2; 5], communicative interaction (social roles of communicants, consitu- ation) [6; 9; 12; 14].

The research is current due to the lack of empirical data of the address functional and semantic peculiarities in distant languages, on the one hand, and absence of the scientists' unique approach to the problem of vocatives' functional and semantic field structure, on the other hand. Complex approach to the problem in the two compared languages allows to examine national peculiarities of addresses in communication, to define similar and specific characters of functional and semantic aspects of the category under study in Ukrainian and French.

The purpose of the research is to study the main principles of linguistic means used to actualize addresses in heroes' speech of Ukrainian and French novels.

The following tasks are solved in this article:

— To define the means of different linguistic levels that produce addresses in novels and to state the mechanisms of their interaction.

— To find common regularities and specific features of addresses functioning in the languages under study.

The research material presents 1867 addresses taken from French and Ukrainian novels.

The basic function of an address is the vocative one (naming, attracting attention and pointing at the communicant) that addresses the utterance to a certain person. At the same time a number of other functions can be actualized in communication; they supplement and modify the vocative function. Such functions are following: the phatic one (establishing and developing the contact with the addressee), the status one (reflecting the status responsibility of the communicants), the emotional and attitudinal one (characterizing the addressee and the attitude of the speaker towards the uttered information). Such modification explains the polyfunctional character of the address in communication [1: 329].

The analyzed material contributes to the fact that while the communicative importance of an address is growing the primary vocative function is giving way to other functions. In this respect keeping in mind the address's polyfuctionality a tight interaction between attitudinal validity and nominative semantics of an address should be mentioned. The following can be interpreted as an illustration to this: an address acquires the voluntary meaning in case when the voluntary modality adds to the semantics of a lexeme -- address [3: 6], and in this case the epistemic modality is actualized via exploiting an imperative form of an address.

Stable forms of politeness in speech are usually attached to contact developing possibilities of addresses. The speech etiquette includes national verbal units developed by the society and one should keep to the rules of communicative behavior [6; 9]. The contact establishing function of addresses is closely connected to the means of social symbols. In order to come to adequate communication the communicants are to demonstrate their personality and social qualities in accordance to social norms [7, 10].

Thus social vocatives can be regarded as a communicative act and an etiquette unit of a discourse since they realize performative functions which fulfill the actions of contact in communication (inviting to contact, shifting the attention of the communicant, directing to some action, changing the roles, guiding the topicality of the dialogue, etc.).

In any case the speaker demonstrates his subjective attitude to the content of the utterance when exercising the phatic function; in this connection the phatic function is isomorphic to the attitudinal function. But it's wrong to identify these functions because subjective evaluation is prier in the at- titudinal function while the pragmatic aspect is a guiding one in the phatic function.

Besides, being one of the most frequent elements in the communication etiquette, the peculiar means reflecting personal relations, the address fulfills honourative and humiliating function, that rises the addressee's social status on the one hand (respect, good manners, politeness) and diminishes the speaker's status to some extent on the other hand.

In contrast to the neutral nomination when a general, typical unit of speech is created (as a result of separating some of the denotant's properties) the emotional nomination denotes two things: identifies the addressee and signifies the characters of the denotant. Being added to the nominative function the characterizing function introduces a greater degree of evaluation in comparison to the ordinary nominative function, some specificity of an active attitude towards the subject of communication that confirms presence of the addressee in communication. The evaluating address is characterized by the hidden predication. The utterance: Pense, cochon! can be quite easily transformed into the fully constructed form: Pense, cochon que tu es!, that is typical of the affective syntax.

While actualizing some definite function the addresses contribute to realizing definite communicative tasks. An address can be treated as the means of influence (emotive and imperative functions). An address can have some purposeful usage (vocative, nominative and contacting, imperative functions). At last the address can unite the aim and some means of gaining the aim (imperative function in combination with an evaluative and characterizing meaning).

All units of address, just like the components of the addressing functional field, are polysemantic and polysemy comprises every type of an address. The intersection of functional and semantic fields' components gives rise to many adjacent zones; the combination of different characters of meaningful components creates some conglomerates within these zones. Thus evaluation being the most widespread element of the combination takes the role of a constituent unit among the status and role components of the semantic field of an address. Pejoratives' usage in this connection is a rather popular form to express axiological modality in the communicative process.

The category character of a person's social status unites selectively with anthroponomical and emotive features. Exploitation of some definite forms of proper names is connected with the indication of the communicants' social difference. A particular noun (complex of names) is characteristic to every social group, in this case the noun has got its own repertoire and particular forms of names' exploitation [5:310]. The status character of proper names is actualized by means of certain combinations of proper name and some title or degree. Children are called by their names; those under the command are often addressed by their surnames with no special vocatives. The liability of the status vector is seen in cases of diversions from the habitual form of addressing that fills the vocative with different connotations. For example, addressing by the first name and patronymic in Ukrainian shows respect. In case the surname follows the first name and patronymic the address demonstrates a formal way of communication. The inverted form like “Професоре Крутіков Іване Дмитровичу!” is used to show condemnation of a person for having done something wrong.

In Ukrainian and French there is no distinct correlation between the components of functional field and topical groups of semantic field of address. The addresses mainly indicate the addressee, his name and attraction of his attention; that is they fulfill the vocative function. Anthroponyms, appellatives (that can be treated as proper names and the appellative refers only to one of those present) are most frequent in this function: Саню, ти не боїшся смерті? Бабуню, що ви? Abdelaziz, c'est toi?Je m'en vais les filles.

The vocative function loses its leading role and sometimes it can be completely diminished among the components of attitudinal group which represent the speaker's attitude towards the listener, e.g. Золотце! Ні, ти таки не помилилася, що вибрала його! Tu pouvais pas le dire tout de suite, esp^e de crntin!

In the status-reglamenting function the most important is correlation with lexics of the following semantic groups: social status, professional state, family relations. This function exploits different forms of proper names corresponding to the communicative situation. It shoul be mentioned that the honouratives are widely used as the signs of status-reglamenting function; they belong to emotional -- evaluating group of addresses.

As to the attitudinal function of addresses it involves both -- lexical units of expressive and emotional group and components of all other lexical groups of the address semantic field: anthroponyms, status and role addresses, situation conditioned addresses.

The developed content of the linguistic object forsees integration of two aspects in the communicative process: firstly, it must be characterized according to the combined functions its aimed at, secondly, it must be presented as an element of a language system, that has certain semantic characters and properties, and besides correlates with other classes of language units.

Therefor, the address in its primary, vocative, function attracts the listener's attention, names the one, identifies the communicant as the addressee. According to these communicative tasks the following functions can be stated within the vocative one: nominative (naming the addressee), deixis (identifying the addressee), vocative proper (attracting the addressee's attention).

It should be stated that systemic and semantic principles of investigation are to be used when studying the category and paradigm of the phenominon. The field model of addresses' semantic structures allows to reseach standard and nonstandard vocatives. The standard addresses form the neucleus of the stmantic field under research and characterize stability of their application in one of the above-mentioned functions. Nonstandard vocative lexemes can play the role of an address under certain circumstances. They form se- manticaly heterogeneous (conditioned by a situation) group, located in the perephery area of the semantic field of addresses

It should be said that the addresses that include anthroponyms form the most widly used group (in Ukrainian 64,5 %, in French 68,1 %), the second place belongs to the addresses with appelatives (34,6 % and 29,9 %, correspondingly). As to the composition of appelatives in the status and role addresses they comprise 36,4 % in Ukrainian and 34,9 % in French. At- titudinal addresses reach 63 % and 65,1 %, correspondingly. Nonstandard addresses located at perephery of the semantic field come to 1 % of the total amount of the experimental material.

The perspective way of future research is to study address in various genres of written and oral speech.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Адамушко H. И. Социальная обусловленность функционирования единиц-обращений в современном немецком языке: автореф. дис.... канд.. філол. наук (10.02.04) / H. И. Андрушко. - М., 1973. - 24 с.

2. Бугакова H. В. Категория обращения в свете когнитивной лингвистики. На материале французского языка: дис.... канд. филол. Наук. - Воронеж, 2001. - 134 с.

3. Войтович С. И. О речевом акте обращения //Вестник Киевского ун-та. Романогерманская филология. - 1998. - Вып. 22. - С. 11-13.

4. Карасик В. И. Модельная личность как лингвокультурный концепт / В. И. Карасик // Филология и культура: материалы Третьей международной науч. конф., Тамбов 16-18 мая 2001 г.: в 3 ч. / отв. ред. H. Н. Болдырев. - Тамбов, 2001. - Ч. 2. - С. 98-101.

5. Кубрякова Е. С. Язык и знание. На пути получения знаний о языке. Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. роль языка в познании мира / рос. Академия наук. ин-т языкознания. - М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. - 560 с.

6. Мальцев І. В. Функціонально-синтаксичні характеристики звертання: автореф. дис.... канд.. філол. наук / І. В. Мальцев. - Лениниград, 1986. - 19 с.

7. Митрофанова О. А. Структурный анализ сигнификативного значения. (На материале глаголов мышления английского и русского языков). - СПб.: Изд-во С. Петербургского ун-та, 1997. - 40 с.

8. Молчанова Г Г Имя собственное и слияние концептов (основания когнитивной стилистики) // Традиционные проблемы языкознания в свете новых парадигм знания: мат. Круглого стола, апрель 2000. - М., 2000. - С. 75-81.

9. Формановская Н. И. Культура общения и речевой этикет/ Н. И. Формановская. - М.: Икар, 2002. - 236 с.

10. Школьник Л. С. Некоторые психологические проблемы реыевого воздействия. - М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1990. - С. 340- 341.

11. Brown F. Terms of Address Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages. - Berlin, 1988. - 309 p.

12. Ervin-Tripp S. M. Sociolinguistics. Advantage in the Sociology of Language. Vol. 1 / J. A. Fishman (Ed.). - The Hague: Mouton, 1976. - P 15-91.

13. Max K., Adler M. J. Naming and Addressing. - Hamburg, 1978. - 281 p.

14. Wunderlich D. Grundlagen der Linguistik. - Hamburg: Busker Verlag, 1974. - 77 p.

REFERENCES

1. Adamushko N. I. Socialnaya obuslovlennost funkcionirovaniya edinic-obrashenij v sovremennom nemeckom yazyke: avtoref. Dis.. na soisk. ychen. step. kand.. filol..nauk (10.02.04) / N. I. Andrushko. - M., 1973. - 24s.

2. Bugakova N. V. Kategoriya obrasheniya v svete kognitivnoj lingvistiki. Na materiale fran- cuzskogo yazyka: Dis.... kand. filol. Nauk. - Voronezh, 2001. - 134s.

3. Vojtovich S. I. O rechevom akte obrasheniya //Vestnik Kievskogo un-ta. Romano-germanskaya filologiya. - 1998. - Vyp.22. - S. 11-13.

4. Karasik V. I. Modelnaya lichnost kak lingvokulturnyj koncept. / V. I. Karasik // Filologiya i kultura. Materialy Tretej mezhdunarodnoj nauch. konf., Tambov 16-18 maya 2001g.: V 3 ch. / otv red. N. N. Boldyrev. - Tambov, 2001. - Ch. 2. - S. 98-101.

5. Kubryakova E. S. Yazyk i znanie. Na puti polucheniya znanij o yazyke. Chasti rechi s kog- nitivnoj tochki zreniya. Rol yazyka v poznanii mira / Ros. akademiya nauk. In-t yazykoz- naniya. - M. - Yazyki slavyanskoj kultury, 2004. - 560s.

6. Malcev I. V. Funkcionalno-sintaksichni harakteristiki zvertannya: avtoref. Dis.. na zdo- buttya nauk. ctep. kand.. filol.. nauk / I. V. Malcev. - Leningrad, 1986. - 19s.

7. Mitrofanova O. A. Strukturnyj analiz signifikativnogo znacheniya. (Na materiale glago- lov myshleniya anglijskogo i russkogo yazykov). - SPb.: Izd-vo S. Peterburgskogo un-ta, 1997. - 40s.

8. Molchanova G. G. Imya sobstvennoe i sliyanie konceptov (osnovaniya kognitivnoj stil- istiki) // Tradicionnye problemy yazykoznaniya v svete novyh paradigm znaniya / Mat. Kruglogo Stola, aprel 2000. - M., 2000. - S. 75-81.

9. Formanovskaya N. I. Kultura obsheniya i rechevoj etiket/ N. I. Formanovskaya. - M.: Ikar, 2002. - 236s.

10. Shkolnik L. S. Nekotorye psihologicheskie problemy rechevogo vozdejstviya. - M.: Sovetskaya enciklopediya, 1990. - S. 340-341.Brown F Terms of Address Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages. - Berlin, 1988. - 309 p.

11. Ervin - Tripp S. M. || Sociolinguistics. Advantage in the Sociology of Language. Vol. 1, J. A. Fishman (Ed.). - The Hague: Mouton, 1976. - P 15-91.

12. Max K., Adler M. J. Naming and Addressing. - Hamburg, 1978. - 281p.

13. Wunderlich D. Grundlagen der Linguistik:. - Hamburg: Busker Verlag, 1974. - 77 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru