Salience Criteria of Indirect Non-Entrenched Textual Names in Russian: Corpus-Based Research

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article approaches textual foreground specifics of indirect non-entrenched names and nominal groups in the Russian language. These constructions reveal the results of particular focus shifts with both identifying and characterizing or classifying components as part of their referent representation. To foreground them, the author uses a group of linguistic markers or means of expression with the intention of bringing forward their relevant character and helping the reader recognize the referent. The research is corpus-based, featuring Russian narrative prose texts, which serve to define the linguistic (lexical and syntactic) means of expressing indirect non-entrenched textual names and nominal groups. The data help reveal the salience criteria where salience is defined through significantly higher frequency of expression means. It also uncovers some resonance dependencies of these salience criteria (with graphical criteria role considered as well), which are manifested to foreground indirect non-entrenched names. The work shows that apart from general salience markers (rhematic position of names, mononuclear syntactic phrase, featuring the author’s perspective, etc.), which have become the research issue in the works of T. Givón, B. Wårwik, A. Siewierska, M. Ariel, O. Iriskhanova and some other linguists, there may be distinguished the salience criteria specific for the textual indirect non-entrenched names and nominal groups. Relative frequency analysis of 28 test parameters values revealed the group of these salience criteria, among which are the textual markers of embodied construal, the presence of a direct name in pre-position, a discreet or single referent marking, null propositional distance between direct and indirect names, coordinative chain of direct and indirect names, predicative position and position in mononuclear sentences, the presence of identifying attributes and rhematic markers in co-referent indirect names.

About the authors

Maria Ivanovna Kiose

Moscow State Linguistic University

Author for correspondence.
Email: maria_kiose@mail.ru

Ph.D. (Advanced Doctorate), Associate Professor, Leading Researcher of The Centre for Socio-Cognitive Studies of Moscow State Linguistic University

38, Ostozhenka Str., Moscow, 119034, Russia

References

  1. Булыгина Т.В., Шмелев А.Д. Вопрос о косвенных вопросах: является ли установленным фактом их связь с фактивностью // Логический анализ языка: Знание и мнение. Отв. ред. Н.Д. Ару­тюнова. М.: Наука, 1988. С. 46—63. [Bulygina, T.V., Shmelev, A.D. (1988). Vopros o kosven­nykh voprosakh: yavlyaetsya li ustanovlennym faktom ikh svyaz' s faktivnost'yu (On reported questions: is it a fact that they possess factuality). In Logicheskii analiz yazyka: Znanie i mnenie. Otv. red. N.D. Arutyunova. Moscow: Nauka. 46—63. (In Russ.)]
  2. Дементьев В.В., Степанова Н.Б. Корпусные методы в исследовании речевых жанров: проблема ключевых фраз // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингви­стика, 2016. Т. 20. № 3. С. 57—76. [Dement'ev, V.V., Stepanova, N.B. (2016). Corpus methods in the study of speech genres: a problem of key phrases. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20 (3), 57—76. (In Russ.)]
  3. Ирисханова О.К. Игры фокуса в языке. Семантика, синтаксис и прагматика дефокусирования. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2014. [Iriskhanova, O.K. (2014). Igry fokusa v yazyke. Semantika, sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovaniya (Focus games in language. Semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury. (In Russ.)]
  4. Киосе М.И. Когнитивно-функциональная методология разграничения прямой и непрямой номинации // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. Вып. 1, 2016. С. 63—70. doi: 10.20916/1812-3228-2016-1-63-70. [Kiose, M.I. (2016). Cognitive-functional methodology of differentiating direct and indirect names in text). In Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki. Issue 1. 63—70. (In Russ.)]
  5. Крылов С.А. Детерминация имени в русском языке: теоретические проблемы // Семиотика и информатика. Вып. 23, 1984. С. 124—154. [Krylov, S.A. (1984) Determinatsiya imeni v russkom yazyke: teoreticheskie problemy (Name determination in the Russian language: theoretical problems). Semiotika i informatika. Issue 23, 24—154. (In Russ.)]
  6. Падучева Е.В. Денотативный статус именной группы и его отражение в семантическом пред­ставлении предложения // НТИ. Серия 2, Вып. 2, 1979. С. 25—31. [Paducheva, E.V. (1979). Denotativnyi status imennoi gruppy i ego otrazhenie v semanticheskom predstavlenii pred­lozheniya (Denotation status of nominal groups and its role in sentence semantics). In NTI. Series 2. Issue 2. 25—31. (In Russ.)]
  7. Шатуновский И.Б. Семантика предложения и нереферентные слова. М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1994. 400 с. [Shatunovskii, I.B. (1994). Semantika predlozheniya i nere­ferentnye slova (Sentence semantics and non-referential words). Moscow: Shkola Yazyki russkoi kul'tury. (In Russ.).]
  8. Ariel, Mira (2004). Accessibility Marking: Discourse Functions, Discourse Profiles, and Processing Cues. Discourse Processes, 37 (2), 91—116. doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_2.
  9. Chafe, Wallace (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  10. Chvany, Catherine (1990). Verbal Aspect, Discourse Saliency, and the So-Called “Perfect of Result” in Modern Russian. In N.B. Thelin (ed.) Verbal Aspect in Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 213—236. doi.org/10.1075/pbns.5.10chv.
  11. Dunbar, George L. (1999). The clustering of natural terms: An Adaptive Resonance Theory model. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Washington D.C. Vol. 6. New York: IEEE, 4362—4364. doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn.1999.830870.
  12. Dunbar, George L. (2010). A computational model of the ambiguity-vagueness spectrum. Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns. Eds. H-J. Schmid, S. Handl. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 13—32. doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.11.
  13. Enkvist, Nils-Erik (1989). Connexity, interpretability, universes of discourse, and text worlds. Possible worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 65. Ed. S. Allén. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 162—187. doi.org/10.1515/9783110866858.162.
  14. Givón, Talmy (1987). Beyond foreground and background. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Ed. R.S. Tomlin. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 175—168. doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.10giv.
  15. Grossberg, Stephen (2003). Bring ART into the ACT. Behavioral and Brain Studies, 26 (5), 610—611. doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x03290130.
  16. Jackendoff, Ray (2011). The Parallel Architecture and its place in cognitive science. Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional. Eds. A. Nolda, O. Teuber. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 17—44. doi.org/10.1515/9783110238754.17.
  17. Karttunen, Lauri (1973). Presuppositions of Compound Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 167—193.
  18. Karttunen, Lauri (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong? Proceedings of SALT, 26, 705—731. doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3954.
  19. Kibrik, Andrej. A. (2011). Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001.
  20. Langacker, Ronald. W. (2005). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning. The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. Grounding cognition. The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking. Eds. D. Pecher, R.A. Zwaan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164—197. doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511499968.008.
  21. Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Eds. D. Geeraerts, H. Guyckens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117—138. doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0005
  22. Siewierska, Anna (2004). On the discourse basis of person agreement. Approaches to cognition through text and discourse. Ed. T. Virtanen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 33—48. doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110892895.33.
  23. Steen, Gerard. J., Dorst, Aletta G., Herrmann, J. Berenike, Kaal, Anna, Krennmayr, Tina, Pasma, Trijntje (2011). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
  24. Wårwik, Brita (1990). Grounding in narratives: What is foregrounded? Proceedings of the 14th Inter­national Congress of Linguists. Ed. W. Bahner, J. Schildt, D. Viehweger. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2253—2256.

Copyright (c) 2019 Kiose M.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies