Subordinate conjunctions in illocutionary usage (abstract review)

Yan Tingting Postgraduate student; Department of Russian Language; University of Moscow State University-SPI in Shenzhen; Lomonosov Moscow State University 014060, China, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Baotou, Taiyuan str., k1, sq. 303 milaula@163.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

The use of conjunctions can be called illocutionary when the content of one of the valences of the union is information related to the illocutionary component of the semantics of the utterance. It is noted that a number of subordinate unions can be used illocatively. In this case, they differ both in their form of expression – one valence often does not receive an explicit expression, and in their function – in that they convey additional meanings related to the target setting of the utterance and the conditions for its success. So, the subject of the study is constructions with an unexpressed valence of subordinate unions in illocutionary use. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of the use of these constructions, as well as to analyze their functions in the transmission of illocutionary information. In accordance with this goal, the following tasks are being solved:to characterize the features of the use of compound conjunctions with unexpressed valence, to determine the illocutionary use of conjunctions, to identify illocutionary functions. The research method is based on the method of structural and semantic analysis, which allows us to consider in detail the functions of subordinate unions, examining their explicit and implicit manifestation in the structure of statements. Within the framework of the theoretical approach, the ideas and provisions developed in the works of T.A. Kolosova, L.N. Jordanskaya, V.Z. Sannikov, E.V. Uryson and others are used, where the specificity of the illocutionary use of subordinate unions is noted.

The main part

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 ^[15]. 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. This article mainly concerns the use of compound conjunctions if, once, until, to, etc. These conjunctions have two semantic valences that can be expressed explicitly, or one of which is implied in a sentence.

Let's look at the example with the union for now:

(1) While you are awake, who will attend the meeting today?

The temporary union so far has two valences: time and action, which is localized in time. In (1) The valence of action is implicitly represented. Compare (1) and (2):

(2) While you are awake, tell me, who will be present at the meeting today?

In (2) all the valences of the union are so far expressed explicitly: the valence of time is the component you are not sleeping, and the component tell me who will be present at the meeting today means action.

So, the construction in (1) while you are awake is called a construction with an unfilled valence of the subordinate union, which is the object of this article.

The features of these structures were described in the late 1970s by T.A. Kolosova, who considered proposals with the union if and proposed naming structures with proposals of an asymmetric structure, see ^[5],[6],[7] and ^[8].

(3) If you want to buy bread, then know that the store is on the left (example of T.A. Kolosova).

A union if it has two semantic valences is the basis (condition) A and corollary B. In the above sentence, the basis (condition) And the component serves you want to buy bread, and the component knows that the store to the left is a consequence of B (that C). All valences are expressed explicitly, and the sentence is based on the model "If A, then B, what's With [shop to the left]".

According to T.A. Kolosova, sentences of this type, based on the "If A, then B, what C" model, are usually found in texts reflecting the peculiarities of book speech, in scientific and official business works, where the authors strive to be unambiguously understandable, and in neutral and colloquial speech they have become widespread collapsed constructions with the union if ^{[8, p. 142]}.

Let's compare the previous sentence with another one:

(4) If you want to buy bread, then shop to the left (example of T.A. Kolosova).

This sentence has already been built on the "If A, then C" model: it has a non–verbalized link in it - you know, which is easily restored. Thus, although the union connects parts A and C, direct conditional relations are established not between the subordinate part A and the main part C, but between A and the block [B, C] ^{[7, p. 6]}. That is, in (4) there is an asymmetry between the units of the plan of expression and the units of the plan of content: there are more predicative units at the level of the signified than at the level of signifiers. According to T.A. Kolosova, collapsed constructions with the union if of type (4) are usually found in neutral and colloquial speech in order to save speech efforts ^{[8, p. 142]}.

These constructions are of great interest to linguists as an example of a special – illocutionary – use of the subordinate conjunction, see the works of E.V. Paducheva, L.N. Jordanskaya, V.Z. Sannikov, O.E. Pekelis, etc.

The use of these conjunctions 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. It is noted that the same properties as if are possessed by conjunctions of times, since, since, so that, so far.

Unlike if, the union of times is described in linguistic literature in different ways: in some works it is presented as a causal union, in others as a conditional one (for different interpretations of the union of times, see in ^{[12, pp. 439-443],[13, p. 50]}). V.Z. Sannikov calls time a "conditionally causal" union, or "causal with a condition outflow", since its meaning includes components of both conditional and causal unions ^{[12, p. 440]}. According to E.V. Uryson, the union of times is "on the border" of two groups of unions – conditional and causal – and therefore cannot be attributed to any of them ^{[13, p. 50]}.

Like the conjunction if, times can be used in sentences constructed according to the model "If A, then B, then C", see (5), and according to the model "If A, then C", see (6):

(5) Well, since you know everything, I'll ask you, which city is the capital of Paraguay?

(6) Well, since you know everything, which city is the capital of Paraguay?

In (5) the valences of times are expressed explicitly: cause / condition A –you know everything, consequence B (what C) –I'll ask you... In (6) valence B is not explicitly expressed and once, passing the relationship between A and [B, what C], formally connects A (you know everything) and C (which city is the capital of Paraguay?).

The union of times can be replaced by causal unions since and since:

(7) Since you know everything, I'll ask you, which city is the capital of Paraguay?

(8) So how do you all know which city is the capital of Paraguay?

(9) Since you know everything, I'll ask you, which city is the capital of Paraguay?

(10) Since you all know which city is the capital of Paraguay?

As these examples show, conjunctions since and since, like conjunctions if and once, are used not only in "complete" sentences in which both valences of conjunctions – valency of cause and valency of effect – are expressed explicitly (see examples (7) and (9)), but in sentences having the form "Since (since) A, then C", where the valence of consequence B remains non-verbalized (see examples (8) and (10)).

The target union does not have valences of purposeful action (B) and for its purpose (A). Valency B can be represented explicitly, see (11), and implicitly, see (12):

(11) Just so you know, I'm informing you that I'm going to Beijing in two weeks.

(12) Just so you know, I'm going to Beijing in two weeks.

Accordingly, (11) is built according to the model "So that A, B, C", and (12) – according to the model "So that A, C".

So far, the temporary union also has two valences, which correspond to situations A and B, connected by temporary relations (A sets the time period during which B takes place), and the valence of B can be expressed explicitly, as in (13), and implicitly, as in (14):

(13) Before I forget, I'm telling you that there's a history exam tomorrow.

(14) Before I forget, there's a history exam tomorrow.

In (13), the model "While A, B, C" is implemented, in (14) – "While A, C".

So, conjunctions if, once, since, since, to and while can be used in two types of sentences: in sentences in which both valences of conjunctions are expressed explicitly, and in sentences in which one of the valences is not expressed.

Sentences with constructions with an unsubstituted valence of the union, such as (4) If you want to buy bread, then the store is on the left;(6) Well, since you know everything, which city is the capital of Paraguay?; (12) So that you know, in two weeks I will go to Beijing; (14)Before I forget, there will be an exam in history and literature tomorrow, several studies are devoted, see first of all ^[9] (the first edition of the book was published in 1985), ^{[4],[11],[10]}. L.N. Jordanskaya suggested naming the use of conjunctions in sentences like (4), (6), (12) and (14) are illocutionary, since they express the connection between the propositional content of one part and the illocutionary function of the other.

So, conjunctions in illocutionary use differ not only in their form of expression – one valence often does not receive explicit expression, but also in their function – in that they convey additional meanings related to the target setting of the utterance and the conditions for its success.

Such unions can introduce three types of information about an utterance – information about its translocative function, see (15), information about compliance with the conditions for the success of a speech act, see (16) and information about its validity, see (17).

(15) – I have no words to convey how I perceive and see this great man, Hashek. My emotions, to be honest, sometimes make my knees shake. – Does he really give that impression? – For me, yes![Rasskazova I. Adventures of the brave goalkeeper Dominik. The correspondent of Sovetsky Sport worked as a guide for the legendary goalkeeper of Spartak Gasek [VIDEO] // Sovetsky Sport, 2010.09.02]

(16) If I'm not mistaken, it rained heavily that night. I went up to close the windows. [V. A. Yarmolinets. Independence Day // "Volga", 2011]

(17) – By the way, before I forget. Tomorrow you and I are going to the Alazani restaurant. [Andrey Lazarchuk. Everyone who can hold a gun... (1995)]

To be honest, it can serve as indicators of the illocutionary function of the utterance, marking the speech act of recognition. "Everyday" (non–legal) recognition is the communication of information that the speaker would prefer not to report, because no one would want it to be known about him ^{[1, p. 273]} and it is usually difficult for people to say such things ^{[3, p. 170]}. As I.A. Sharonov notes, a confession may contain a message from the speaker about his negatively assessed actions or actions of a third person, for which the speaker is jointly responsible, or an evaluative judgment about something ^{[14, pp. 312-313]}.

So, in (15), the speaker reports that his "knees are shaking" when he sees the game of the team led by Hasek) and thereby exposes himself in a not very favorable light. To be honest, in this case they are used to prevent a possible negative reaction of the addressee: referring to their sincerity and truthfulness, the speaker apologizes for violating the rules of communication.

Am I not mistaken It refers to constructions that comment on the observance of the conditions for the success of a speech act. With this construction, the speaker warns the addressee that he is not responsible for the truth of the transmitted information, which may not correspond to reality.

In (16), we are talking about events that are remote from the speaker in time, the details of these events may not be preserved in the speaker's memory, while the speaker warns the addressee that one of the conditions for the success of his message may not be fulfilled.

Finally, constructions with an unfilled valence of conjunctions can be used to justify a speech act. As V.Z. Sannikov writes, while I have not forgotten in (17) shows that "the speaker is aware that he is able to make a statement, but this ability may be lost, so he is addressing right now" ^{[11, p. 127]}.

In this function, different conjunctions are used – if, once, for now, to, etc. In addition, All justification constructions can be divided into two groups: universal justifications and justifications of certain types of speech acts.

V.Z. Sannikov drew attention to the existence of universal justifications, see ^[11]. Speaking about the construction before I forget, V.Z. Sannikov noted that it is "a universal justification for any statement. Subordinate clauseBefore I forget, you can probably put it before any statement, question, motivation, or maybe before other speech acts, cf.: Before I forget, Petya came yesterday "where did you put the dictionary?; go get bread" ^{[11, p. 127]}.

Universal justifications can also include constructions of the type once (since, so far) You're here not to forget and under.

Let's look at an example in order not to forget, where the justification is given for why the speaker is reporting his plans at the moment:

(18) Mikhalev. Yes, so as not to forget ― I'm not going to live at home anymore, I'm moving to the country. Mikhaleva. Oh, how great! So this fool really fell for you? [Edward Radzinsky. Sports scenes of the 80s (1986)]

Along with the universal justifications, the constructions under consideration can also express the justifications of certain types of speech acts. So, the construction since you know everything gives a justification for why the speaker asks the addressee (19), and the construction if you need my advice justifies the speech act of the council (20), see:

(19) Well, since you know everything, which city is the capital of Paraguay?

(20) In short, Anastasia, if you need my advice about "leaving – not leaving", then I think you should stay. [Alexandra Marinina. Men's Games (1997)]

Conclusion

This article examines the cases of the use of subordinate conjunctions if, once, while and to, etc., in which one of the valences of the union is expressed implicitly, which adds semantic flexibility and saves speech efforts. Constructions of this type are of great interest to linguists as an example of a special – illocutionary – use of a subordinate conjunction. The article shows that such constructions convey three types of information about the utterance, an indication of the illocutionary function of the utterance, compliance with the conditions for the success of the speech act and the justification of the utterance.