Library
|
Your profile |
Litera
Reference:
Yang T.
Types of conjunction usage
// Litera.
2024. ¹ 11.
P. 65-74.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2024.11.72223 EDN: GYDCXK URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=72223
Types of conjunction usage
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2024.11.72223EDN: GYDCXKReceived: 04-11-2024Published: 11-11-2024Abstract: This article is devoted to subordinating conjunctions, in particular conditional and causal conjunctions, which have two semantic valences - the valence of condition or cause and the valence of effect. These conjunctions can be used in two types of sentences: in sentences where both valences of conjunctions are expressed explicitly, and in sentences where one of the valences is not expressed. At the same time, the content of the valence can be information related to different levels of the semantics of the sentence - to the propositional and to the pragmatic levels. The propositional level is formed by information about the situation called by the sentence, and the pragmatic level consists of meanings reflecting various aspects of the speech situation. The pragmatic level, in particular, includes such semantic components as illocutionary, epistemic and metatextual. Thus, the subject of the study is the types of conjunctions usage, distinguished depending on how their valences are expressed and what their content is. When describing the constructions, we used the method that is applied to the analysis of linguistic units expressing various subjective meanings. This method consists in explicating the features of the speech situation related to the use of a given language unit (the speaker's evaluation of the denoted situation, information about it or his/her own utterance) and taking them into account when characterizing its meaning. The novelty of this study lies in the systematic approach to the analysis of subordinating conjunctions, which is based on the identification and classification of their usage depending on the level of semantic relations. Thus, in sentences with subordinating conjunctions (especially conditional and causal conjunctions) the valences of conjunctions differ in the way of expression and the level of semantics. This allows us to distinguish four types of conjunctions usage: propositional, illocutionary, epistemic and metatextual. Keywords: subordinating conjunctions, semantic valency, elliptical sentences, incomplete sentences, asymmetric proposals, valence content, propositional usage of a conjunction, illocutionary usage of a conjunction, metatextual usage of a conjunction, epistemic usage of a conjunctionThis article is automatically translated. Introduction The subject of this article is subordinate unions, in particular conditional and causal ones. The peculiarity of unions is that one of the valences may not be expressed. In this case, the content of the valence of the union can be information related to different levels of sentence semantics. So, depending on the way of expressing valences and their content, four uses of the conjunction are distinguished – propositional, illocutionary, epistemic and metatextual, which is the object of research. The purpose of this article is to identify and analyze the characteristics of different types of use of subordinate unions. In accordance with this goal, the following tasks are solved in the article: to characterize the features of sentences with constructions with an unfilled valence of the subordinate union, to clarify the types of information related to the content of the valence, to systematize and describe the four uses of subordinate unions. Taking into account the specifics of the subject, object, purpose and objectives of the work, the methodology of the conducted research is complex: general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, descriptive method, interpretative analysis of selected material, method of system analysis, etc. are used. The main part The article discusses subordinate unions, in particular conditional and causal ones. The theory of semantic valence was proposed by the French linguist Lucien Tenier, who introduced the concept of valence to describe the verb's ability to control other elements in a sentence [12]. This concept developed gradually and began to be applied in the analysis of unions: subordinate unions, expressing the logical relationship between two situations, have two semantic valences. For example, conditional conjunctions have condition valence and consequence valence: (1) If you need help [condition], contact the police [investigation]! The article will focus on the types of use of conjunctions, which can be distinguished depending on how their valences are expressed and what their content is. From the point of view of the expression of valences, two cases differ, see (1) and (2): (2) If you need help, the police are not far from here. In (1), both valences are expressed by explicit predicative units forming a complex sentence. Example (2) is constructed differently. The condition is also expressed by an adjunct (You need help), but the situation presented in the main part (the police are not far from here) cannot be a consequence in relation to the situation called an adjunct. The valence of the consequence of the union in this case is expressed implicitly. If we explicate this valence, we get a three-component construction: If you need help, keep in mind that the police are not far from here. In real communication, implicit valence is easily restored by the addressee due to his speech practice and life experience [4, p. 48]. Thus, when using a union, both of its valences can receive an explicit expression, or one of them can be implicit. T. A. Kolosova drew attention to this phenomenon in the late 70s of the last century, who proposed calling constructions of type (2) sentences of an asymmetric structure, see [5]. In addition to the way valences are expressed, conjunctions may differ in content. The content of the valence of the union can be information related to different levels of sentence semantics – both propositional and pragmatic. The propositional level is formed by information about a situation called a sentence, and the pragmatic level consists of meanings reflecting the speaker's attitude to the described situation, information about it, to his statement and to the addressee (see [11]). In the information that relates to the pragmatic level, when describing unions, it is important to distinguish three components – illocutionary, epistemic and metatextual. According to modern research, the union, firstly, can express relations at the propositional level, and secondly, establish a connection between the proposition of one predicative unit and the illocutionary, epistemic or metatextual component of the semantics of another. Accordingly, four uses of the conjunction are distinguished – propositional, illocutionary, epistemic and metatextual. The content of the valences of the union may be information related to the propositional component of the semantics of the utterance. Consider the example with the union if: (3) I'll forgive you if you apologize. Both valences of a conditional union are expressed explicitly: the condition is the component you will apologize, and the consequence is I will forgive you. The content of valences consists of information about situations that are called predicative units, so the conditional-effect relationship is established at the propositional level. The conjunction in this case is used propositionally. The use of a union is called illocutionary when the content of one of the valences of the union is information that relates to the illocutionary component of the semantics of the utterance, i.e. information about its illocutionary function. (4) If I understood correctly, the exam will be tomorrow. In this sentence, the conjunction if expresses the relationship between the proposition of the dependent predicative unit and the illocutionary component of the semantics of the main predicative unit – the implicit meaning of ‘I inform'. If we restore this component, we will receive an offerIf I understood correctly, I am informing you that the exam will be tomorrow. The fact that a union can establish a relationship between the proposition of one predicative unit and a speech act implemented by another predicative unit was written in the works of the 80s of the last century by E. V. Paducheva and L. N. Jordanskaya (see [7, p. 46]; [2]). L. N. Jordanskaya, analyzing the union of times, I came to the conclusion that this union is used illocatively in the vast majority of cases. For the illocutionary reason, L. N. Jordanskaya proposed an interpretation: "the speaker believes that in the situation Y, which takes place, it is completely natural that the speaker makes a statement X" [2, p. 264], see (5): (5) If you like proverbs, don't get in your sleigh! According to L. N. Jordanskaya's interpretation, in this case, the speaker believes that there is a situation "the addressee loves proverbs" and that in this situation it is natural that the speaker tells the addressee the proverb do not get into your sleigh. In the works of the 80s, illocutionary usage was widely understood. An attempt to limit the volume of illocutionary constructions was made by V. Z. Sannikov, see [9]; [10]. According to V. Z. Sannikov, the illocutionary use of conjunctions can be discussed only if there is no semantic connection between the propositions of the predicative units that the union connects: "Illocutionary [constructions] should include those where the content of the second part is completely abstracted from the content of the first and determines only the type of speech act itself, explains, why (or under what conditions) is the second part framed as an incentive (and not, for example, as a question or statement), and vice versa" [10, p. 70]. For example: Since you know everything, which city is the capital of South Dakota?; Well, if you want to know the truth, your father has left forever. These constructions, according to V. Z. Sannikov, are illocutionary, because there is no semantic connection between the propositions of predicative units: "The deep knowledge of the interlocutor or his love of truth determined the appeal to the interlocutor, but not the very content of the utterance" [Ibid.]. Let's consider another example of the illocutionary use of the union: (6) If you are interested, the stadium was built a year ago. The situation described by the subordinate ("you are interested") determines not that the stadium was built a year ago, but the speaker's message about when the stadium was built, i.e. the content of the valence of the consequence of the union if the meaning is 'I inform'. When this meaning is explicitly expressed, we get a sentenceIf you are interested, I would like to inform you that the stadium was built a year ago. The illocutionary use of the union imposes certain restrictions on the semantics of the dependent predicative unit. The predicative unit of the subordinate, introduced by the conjunction if, serves to justify the speech act that is performed in the main sentence (although it is expressed implicitly), for example, in (6) the addressee's interest is the basis for communicating the speaker's information. In this case, the subordinate clause with the conjunction loses the semantics of the condition and passes into the introductory construction. Using constructions with if, the speaker can indicate the degree of accuracy of perception of the message (if I understood correctly;if I'm not mistaken ...), the degree of sincerity (to be honest;to be honest; to be honest;to be honest ...), on how accurately information is transmitted (if I may say so;if I may say so ...), on the possibility, necessity or relevance of the main message (if you want;if you are interested in this...), to observe the rules of politeness (if I may;if you want;if you can find out ...) and the source of the information (judging by the publications;if you believe the testimony of the mother ...) [6, pp. 138-140]. In illocutionary usage, the conjunction expresses the relationship between the proposition of one predicative unit with the illocutionary component of the semantics of another predicative unit. The epistemic use was singled out in a special type by O. E. Pekelis. When used epistemically, the conjunction connects the proposition of one predicative unit with the epistemic component of the semantics of another predicative unit [8]. The epistemic component includes information about the speaker's knowledge or assumptions about the described situation. For example, in the semantics of a sentenceMasha is not at home there is an epistemic component "the speaker knows or thinks [that Masha is not at home]." It is this information that is the content of the valence of the consequence of the union because in sentence (6) Masha is not at home because the door to the room is locked. After restoring this meaning, we will receive an offer. I think Masha is not at home because the door to the room is locked. Finally, consider the ratio of the valence content of the union and the metatext component. The metatext component is formed by information about the utterance itself, i.e. information that relates to the metatext (according to A. Vezhbitskaya, see [1]). The metatext level as the sphere of use of the connector (and in particular the union) was proposed to be taken into account by O. Y. Inkova, see [3]. In metatextual usage, the content of the valence of the union becomes information about the place of the utterance in the discursive sequence and its connection with other utterances, information about the choice of linguistic means to designate fragments of reality and about the way fragments of reality are represented. Consider the following examples: (7) If we're talking about Anna, she's a good person. (8) Such a dollar exchange rate can be considered fair, if this word is appropriate here. (9) In short, I promised to show up in an hour. In all three examples, the dependent predicative unit expresses a comment that the speaker gives to some aspect of his statement. In (7), the speaker explains why he considers it appropriate to express his opinion about Anna at this particular moment, i.e. the subordinate clause if motivates the place of the statement in the discourse. In (8), the speaker comments on the word fair chosen by him, in (9) indicates the way reality is presented (in short, it means "without details, without particulars"). Accordingly, the content of the second valence of the union is not the proposition of the main predicative unit, but the meanings related to the meta-textual component: "I will express my opinion now", "I will use this word" or "I will say it in the following way". These semantic components can be represented explicitly, see: (7a)If we're talking about Anna, [I'll tell you now:] she's a good person. (8a)Such a dollar exchange rate can be considered fair, [I will use this word] if this word is appropriate. (9a)In short, [I will say as follows:] I promised to show up in an hour. Thus, the use of a conjunction is called metatextual if the conjunction establishes a relationship between the proposition of one predicative unit and the metatextual component of the semantics of another predicative unit. Result The valences of subordinate unions, primarily conditional and causal, may differ in the way of expression and content. From the point of view of the ways of expression, valences expressed explicitly and implicitly differ. From the point of view of the content of valences, it is important to distinguish information related to different levels of sentence semantics. When expressing a relationship at the propositional level, the content of the valence is information about a situation called a sentence. If the union establishes a connection at the illocutionary, epistemic or metatextual level, then the content of one of the valences is information related to the illocutionary, epistemic or metatextual component of the semantics of the utterance. In accordance with this, four uses of the conjunction are distinguished – propositional, illocutionary, epistemic and metatextual. References
1. Vezhbitskaya, A. (1978). Metatext in text. In New in Foreign Linguistics, Issue 8, Text Linguistics (pp. 402–424). Moscow: Progress.
2. Iordanskaya, L. N. (1988). The semantics of the Russian conjunction "raz" (in comparison with some other Russian conjunctions). Russian Linguistics, 12, 239–267. 3. Inkova, O. Y. (2019). Logical-semantic relations: Classification issues. In O. Y. Inkova & E. Manzotti (Eds.), Text Cohesion: Mereological Logical-Semantic Relations (pp. 59–98). Moscow: JASK. 4. Kolosova, T. A. (1979). On dictum and modus in complex sentences. Scientific Reports of Higher Education. Philological Sciences, 2, 47–53. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. 5. Kolosova, T. A. (1980). Russian sentences of asymmetric structure. Voronezh: Voronezh University Press. 6. Kolosova, T. A., & Mityaeva, E. S. (1986). From subordinate clauses to parenthetical constructions. In Contrastive Studies of Russian and German Languages (pp. 133–143). Voronezh: Voronezh University Press. 7. Paducheva, E. V. (2010). The utterance and its correlation with reality: Referential aspects of pronoun semantics. Moscow: LKI Publishing. 8. Pekelis, O. E. (2013). Illocutionary usage of conjunctions. Materials for the project on the corpus description of Russian grammar. Rusgram.ru. Manuscript. Moscow. 9. Sannikov, V. Z. (2005). Illocutionary usage or syntactic ellipsis? Russian Language in Scientific Perspective, 2(10), 121–136. 10. Sannikov, V. Z. (2008). Russian syntax in the semantic-pragmatic space. Moscow: Language of Slavic Cultures. 11. Shmeleva, T. V. (1988). Semantic syntax: Lecture notes from the course "Modern Russian Language". Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State University. 12. Tesnière, L. (1988). Fundamentals of Structural Syntax (V. G. Gak, Trans. & Ed.). Moscow: Progress. (Original work published in French).
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|