Features of the Use of Addressed Statements in Russian Orthodox Sermon

The features of the use of addressed utterances are considered from the point of view of the concept of asubjectivation, as opposed to the locuous activity of the subject of speech. Asubjectivation is defined as the presence in the semantics of the statement of the point of view of a non-assertive judgment subject, which is not perceived by the speaker’s sphere of consciousness and imposes restrictions on the meaning of the illocutionary act. The main method for identifying and describing asubjectivation in addressed utterances in a sermon is the identification of the scope and illocutionary force of the utterance. It has been proven that addressed utterances in a sermon, regardless of the speaker’s intentions, cover any communication participants, including those who turn out to be casual listeners. In addition, asubjectivation manifests itself as a requirement for the speaker to perform the illocutionary act “informative”, addressed to all participants in communication together, and at the same time — the speech act “message”, which regulates adequate interaction with the recipients of speech when using the language in the sermon. As a material, the authors considered statements built on the grammatical base of sentences with propositional (complex with additional clauses) and non-propositional meanings (impersonal with a due predicate). The relevance of the research is associated with the study of a new type of relationship in the semantic-syntactic structure of the sentence. The concept of asubjectivation allows us to formulate principles that regulate the features of referential relations in the structure of a sentence, taking into account the specifics of discourse.

1. Arutyunova, N. D. (1981). Faktor adresata [Addressee factor]. Izvestiya AN SSSR. Seriya literatury i yazyka [News of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Literature and Language Series], 40 (4): 356—367. (In Russ.).

2. Benvenist, E. (1974). Obshchaya lingvistika [General linguistics]. Moskva: Progress. 448 p. (In Russ.).

3. Bobyreva, E. V. (2007). Religioznyy diskurs: tsennosti, zhanry, strategii (na materiale pravoslavnogo veroucheniya): author’s abstract of Doct. Diss. [Religious discourse: values, genres, strategies (based on the Orthodox faith). Author’s abstract of Doct. Diss.]. Volgograd. 42 p. (In Russ.).

4. Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Semantika litsa [Face semantics]. In: Teoriya funktsionalnoy grammatiki. Personalnost’. Zalogovost’ [Functional grammar theory. Personality. Pledge]. SanktPeterburg: Nauka. 5—41. (In Russ.).

5. Burtsev, V. A. (2017). Problema subyektivnosti vyskazyvaniya v diskurse na primere povelitelnykh predlozheniy [Problem of Subjectivity in a Discourse in Terms of Imperative Sentences]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literature [Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Language and Literature], 14 (4): 567—582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu09.2017.406. (In Russ.).

6. Burtsev, V. A. (2020). Upotreblenie svyazochnykh predlozheniy v diskurse russkoy pravoslavnoy propovedi v kontekste rechevogo akta [Use of cohesive sentences in the discourse of Russian Orthodox preaching in the context of a speech act]. Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki [Issues of cognitive linguistics], 1: 103—114. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2020-1-103-114. (In Russ.).

7. Fuko, M. (2004). Arkheologiya znaniya [Archeology of knowledge]. Sankt-Peterburg: Gumanitarnaya akademiya; Universitetskaya kniga. 416 p. (In Russ.).

8. Kaminskaya, T. L. (2008). Struktura kategorii «obraz adresata massovoy kommunikatsii» [Structure of the category “image of the addressee of mass communication”]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Chelyabinsk State University Bulletin], 12: 47—55. (In Russ.).

9. Karasik, V. I. (2002). Yazykovoy krug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena. 477 p. (In Russ.).

10. Khimik, V. V. (1990). Kategoriya subyektivnosti i ee vyrazhenie v russkom yazyke [Category of subjectivity and its expression in Russian]. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Leningradskogo universiteta. 182 p. (In Russ.).

11. Klark, G. G., Karlson, T. B. (1986). Slushayushchie i rechevoy akt [Listeners and speech act]. In: Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike: sbornik statey. Teoriya rechevykh aktov [New in foreign linguistics: a collection of articles. Theory of speech acts]. Moskva: Progress, 17: 270—321. (In Russ.).

12. Kobozeva, I. M. (2004). Lingvisticheskaya semantika [Linguistic semantics]. Moskva: Editorial URSS. 352 p. (In Russ.).

13. Kobozeva, I. M., Laufer, N. I. (1991). Semantika predikatov dolzhenstvovaniya v russkom yazyke [Semantics of obligation predicates in Russian]. Russistik, 1: 68—76. (In Russ.).

14. Kruchinina, I. N. (1990). Obrashchenie [Appeal]. In: Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moskva: Sov. entsiklopediya. 340—341. (In Russ.).

15. Krylova, O. A. (2003). Tserkovno-religioznyy stil [Church-religious style.]. In: Stilisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’russkogo yazyka [Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Moskva: Flinta, Nauka. 612—616. (In Russ.).

16. Layonz, Dzh. (2003). Lingvisticheskaya semantika: vvedenie [Linguistic semantics: an introduction]. Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury. 400 p. (In Russ.).

17. Mikhalskaya, A. K. (1996). Russkiy Sokrat: lektsii po sravnitelno-istoricheskoy ritorike. [Russian Socrates: Lectures on Comparative Historical Rhetoric]. Moskva: Academia. 192 p. (In Russ.).