Appellative Constructions with Epistemic Modality Predicates
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-5-55-71
Abstract
The object of the study is parenthetical constructions, represented in the language by three types — modal, reflexive and appellative. Modal introductory constructions denote the modal status of a proposition. In reflexive introductory constructions, epistemic units act as reflection marking. Appellative introductory constructions have an illocutionary function — the function of influencing the addressee. The purpose of this article is to analyze appellative constructions with epistemic predicates — one of the subclasses of propositional attitude predicates, verbs of knowledge, perception and opinion. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that epistemic predicates play an important role in the processes of communication and argumentation. The results of a comparative analysis of appellative constructions in several languages — Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, German, English, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are presented. Particular attention is paid to the comparison of matrix constructions with epistemic predicates, that is, constructions with a dependent clause, and appellative constructions with these predicates. The analysis of translations of foreign texts with matrix constructions into Russian made it possible to conclude that there is a tendency to replace the original matrix constructions with introductory ones, and vice versa, the analysis of translations of texts from Russian with introductory constructions indicates a tendency to replace them with matrix ones.
About the Author
E. R. Ioanesyan
Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeniya R. Ioanesyan - Doctor of Philology, Leading Researcher, Sector of Romance Languages.
Moscow
References
1. Anscombre, J. C. (1985). Grammaire traditionnelle et grammaire argumentative de la concession. Revue internationale de philosophiye, 39(4): 333—349.
2. Anscombre, J. C., Ducrot, O. L. (1976). L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages, 42: 5—27.
3. Apresyan, Yu. D. (1993). Synonymy of mental predicates: counting group. In: Logical analy-sis of language: mental actions. Moscow: Nauka. 7—22. (In Russ.).
4. Apresyan, Yu. D. (1995). Selected works, 2 Integral description of the language and system lexicography. Moscow: School Languages of Russian Culture. 767 p. ISBN 5-88766-045-7. (In Russ.).
5. Apresyan, Yu. D. (2001). System-forming meanings ‘know’ and ‘count’ in the Russian. Russian in Scientific Coverage, 1: 5—26. (In Russ.).
6. Arutyunova, N. D. (1987). The verb to see in the function of the predicate of a propositional attitude. In: Propositional predicates in the logical and linguistic aspect. Moscow: Nauka. 12—14. (In Russ.).
7. Babina, L. V., Parshina, E. O. (2013). Appellatives as a means of representing evaluative knowledge. Cognitive Language Studies, 15: 352—360. (In Russ.).
8. Banfield, A. (1979). Où l'épistémologie, le style et la grammaire rencontrent l'histoire littéraire: le développement de la parole et de la pensée représentées. Langue françai, 44: 9—26. (In French.).
9. Baranov, A. N. (1987). Explicit mode in argumentative dialogue. In: Propositional predicates in the logical and linguistic aspect. Moscow: Nauka. 15—18. (In Russ.).
10. Baranov, A. N. Linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach): Doct. Diss. Moscow, 1990. 372 p. (In Russ.).
11. Borillo, A. (1982). Deux aspects de la modalisation assertive: croire et savoir. Langages, 67: 33—53.
12. Dehé, N., Kavalova, Y. (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 314 p.
13. Dehé, N., Wichmann, A. (2010). Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that). Prosodic Evidence for Use as Main Clause, Comment Clause and Discourse Marker. Studies in Language, 34(1): 36—74.
14. Dmitrovskaya, M. A. (1988). Knowledge and opinion: the image of the world, the image of a person. In: Arutyunova, N. D. Logical analysis of language: knowledge and opinion. Moscow: Nauka. 6—18. ISBN 5-02-010897-9. (In Russ.).
15. Fedorova, L. L. (2003). On the definition of the functions of speech acts. In: Computer Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies: Proceedings of the International Conference Dialogue 2003, (Protvino, June 11—16, 2003). Moscow: Nauka. 151—156. (In Russ.).
16. Grossmann, F. (2014). Verbes de constat et autres verbes «parenthétiques»: Quel statut dans l'écrit scientifique? Arena Romanistica, 14: 106—122. (In French.).
17. Ioanesyan, E. R. (2000). Functional semantics of epistemic predicates (based on French). Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 246 p. (In Russ.).
18. Ioanesyan, E. R. (2011). Argumentative meanings of language units: (based on the Russian and French languages). Moscow: Soviet writer. 218 p. ISBN 978-5-265-06459-2. (In Russ.).
19. Iordanskaja, L., Mel’Cuk, I. (2011). Verbes parenthétiques illocutifs en russe. Cahiers de lexicologie: Revue internationale de lexicologie et lexicographiye, 98: 177—196.
20. Kobozeva, I. M. (1999). On two types of introductory constructions with a parenthetic verb. In: Typology and theory of language: from description to explanation, to the 60th anniversary of A. E. Kibrik. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture. 539—543. (In Russ.).
21. Kordi, E. E. (2020). Mental verbs: valency taxis (based on the French language). Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 16(2): 509—543. DOI: 10.30842/alp2306573716218. (In Russ.).
22. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1973). Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammar Meet: A Case Study from Japanese. In: A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 377—391.
23. Kustova, G. I. (2020). On the communicative status of introductory constructions with mental predicates. Proceedings of the Institute of the Russian Language. V. V. Vinogradova, 3 (25): 62—76. DOI: 10.31912/pvrli-2020.3.5. (In Russ.).
24. Kustova, G. I. (2020). Semantic effects of time in introductory constructions with mental verbs. In: Computer Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies: Proceedings of the International Conference Dialogue 2020, (Moscow, June 17—20, 2020). Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. 485—499. DOI: 10.28995/2075-7182-2020-19-485-499. (In Russ.).
25. Kustova, G. I., Shvelidze, N. B. (2020). System properties of appellative introductory constructions (according to the national corpus of the Russian language). Scientific and technical information. Series 2: Information Processes and Systems, 9: 27—36. DOI: 10.36535/0548-0027-2020-09-5. (In Russ.).
26. Martin, R. (1987). Langage et croyance: Les «univers de croyance» dans la théorie semantique. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga editeur. 189 p. (In French.).
27. Ostroumova, O. A., Frampol, O. D. (2009). Dictionary of introductory words, combinations and sentences: the experience of a reference dictionary. Moscow: Publishing House of SGU. 501 p. ISBN 978-5-8323-0609-4. (In Russ.).
28. Récanati, F. (1984). Remarques sur les verbes parenthetiques. In: De la syntaxe à la pragmatique. Amsterdam: Philadelphia. 319—353.
29. Urmson, J. O. (1970). Parenthetical verbs. In: Philosophy and ordinary language. Urbana; Chicago; London: University of Illinois Press. 220—240.
30. Vendler, Z. (1987). Facts in language. In: Philosophy. Logics. Language. Moscow: Progress. 293—317. (In Russ.).
31. Wierzbicka, A. (1971). Metatekst w tekscie. In: O spόjnośći tekstu. Wrocław; Warszawa: Ossolineum. 105—121. (In Pol.).
32. Zaliznyak, A. A., Paducheva, E. V. (1987). On the semantics of the introductory use of verbs. In: Issues of Cybernetics: Applied Aspects of Linguistic Theory. Moscow: Scientific Council on Cybernetics. 80—96. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Ioanesyan E.R. Appellative Constructions with Epistemic Modality Predicates. Nauchnyi dialog. 2023;12(5):55-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-5-55-71
Views:
370
Email this article 