The Pragmatic Principles in the Grammar Descriptions

The text of the article is dedicated to the development of means of describing grammatical categories. In the first place, attention is paid to categories that are capable of conveying nominative, or lexical, meaning, such as the category of number which conveys the opposition of meanings "one" and "many". In Russian grammar, the rules for the use of the grammatical category of verb aspect are considered the most complex case. The semantic component of this category is contradictory and requires a large conceptual apparatus. However, even in this case, not all cases of real use of aspectual forms receive a consistent interpretation. Many "difficult cases" can be reinterpreted with the help of new concepts related to modeling speech activity. The article demonstrates the possibility of using pragmatic tools, in particular Grice's postulates and the principle of relevance, to describe the most complex fragments of the language system. An attempt is made to analyze the most complex cases of the use of Russian verb aspect, which is not always reduced to the opposition of completed and incomplete action. Cases of competition - context in which the choice of aspect is not related to the main aspectual meanings, causing difficulties in learning Russian - are meant. Examples are described where the choice of aspect can be explained by the speaker's desire for clarity and comprehensibility in accordance with pragmatic principles. This approach - interactive, i.e. considering the interaction between speaker and listener - allows not only to formulate rules for choosing aspect in cases noted in practical textbooks, but also to explain why the rules from textbooks may not work, not predict the real correct use of aspectual forms.

Keywords

verbal aspect, Gricean principles, rules of choice

Received

08.12.2023

Publication date

08.12.2023

Number of characters

22382

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Borisova E. The Pragmatic Principles in the Grammar Descriptions // Linguistica Fundamentalis – 2023. – Issue 2 (2) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://linguistica-fundamentalis.ru/S294939000028973-9-1 (circulation date: 19.05.2024). DOI: 10.18254/S294939000028973-9
MLA	Borisova, Elena "The Pragmatic Principles in the Grammar Descriptions." Linguistica Fundamentalis 2 (2023) DOI: 10.18254/S294939000028973-9
APA	Borisova E. (2023). The Pragmatic Principles in the Grammar Descriptions. Linguistica Fundamentalis (2) DOI: 10.18254/S294939000028973-9

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.


1	1. Grammar categories make the skeleton of the language system. Their regular use makes them the most constant parts of every language. The categories differ both by means of expression (not discussed here) and by their content. The content of grammar categories can be about syntactic relations in the syntactic structure of sentences, e.g. adjectives in Latin, many Slavic and some other languages. In English such cases are rare, one can mention only personal pronouns that show the governing of predicates.
2	(1) He entered and asked me about the day after tomorrow.
3	The content of some grammar categories is semantic as the grammemes can express the meaning that can be also expressed by lexis [Chafe, 1970]. The Plural means ‘more than one’ that can be also expressed by the word many (or much or some).
4	Besides these two types that can be called syntactic and semantic categories one can mention the category of politeness which refers to pragmatics. We can announce the third type of grammar categories – the pragmatic grammar category though the situation is rather rare and we will not dwell on it further.
5	Grammar categories differ from other elements of the language system due to its obligatority nature. The grammar category is the opposition of two or more entities, while the meaning of the opposing element should be obligatory expressed. Thus in English (and in all Slavic languages) every noun should be in the plural or singular form (in Slavonic it is also accepted because of the dual nature of the element) While in Japanese the expressing of this opposition is not necessary since the idea of plurality can be expressed by means that are not regarded as grammatical.
6	Beside syntactic and semantic meanings of categories there are some cases when the activity of the speaker or the hearer plays the crucial role for the usage of grammatical markers. The grammar scholars pay attention to such categories as evidentialllity [Chafe, 1986; Guentchéva, 1996], tense and aspect. The opposing meanings of grammemes in these categories include the presence of the Speaker. The conflicting meaning is formed by the pragmatic nature. And the rules of choosing proper grammemes should include the pragmatic principles of the Speaker’s and the Hearer’s interaction [Ochs, 1996; Sperber, 1995].
7	The case of Russian Verbal Aspect is to be analyzed here.
8	2. In the cognitive model of Language [Geereaerts, 1989] the semantic grammar categories form a circle with nucleus and periphery. The nucleus is formed by the opposing meanings, the most important for the category, e.g. ‘one – many’ for the category of plurality. The rare meanings or special cases as unique elements (the Earth) or many element regarded as aggregate (sand, humanity) form periphery and their specifics can slightly vary from the principle meaning of the grammemes. Thus one can speak about the polysemy of grammar categories. It is supposed that all the meanings of grammemes can explain the usage of them in every context and predict what is necessary for the speakers, especially non-native speakers.
9	There are categories: definiteness and Tense for English, Slavic Aspect and some others that are more complicated, and the abovementioned model is not sufficient for proper choosing the necessary grammemes in many categories. This can be illustrated by the example of the Russian grammar that is traditionally regarded as the most difficult for non-native speakers [Zalizniak, 1997].
10	3. The Principle Opposition of the category of Russian Grammar Aspect is not yet revealed, though all Russian verbs belong to the Perfect (sdelat’ – to do up to the end once) or Imperfect category (delat’ – to do for some time maybe several times). Any attempts to formulate the principle (general, integral) of the category failed [Glovinskaya, 1986] though some efforts are still being made. Yet the best way to mark the relations between Aspect grammemes and the meaning expressed by this category is through particular meanings (just as particular meanings of lexemes) [Maslov, 1984]. As for the Imperfect the particular meanings are plurality of actions.
11	(2) My zakryvali etu dver’ i uxodili. – ‘We closed the door and went away.’ (often, usually, several times, progressive (continuous)
12	(3) My dolgo zakryvali slomannuyu dver’. – ‘We were closing the destroyed door for a long time.’ (constatation of the fact)
13	(4) My zakryvali etu dver’, zamok rabotal. – ‘We have closed this door once or several times – it makes no difference and everything was OK.’ (potential meaning)
14	(5) On zakryval etu dver’ esche rebenkom – ‘He (could) close the door even when he was a child.’ (and habitual)
15	(6) On zakryval etu dver vsegda. – ‘He always ‘used to’ close this door.’
16	There are concrete meanings of Perfect Aspect too so there are grammar oppositions Imp. ‘several times’ – Perf ‘once’, Imp. continuous – Perf moment (the period is regarded as finished), Imp. constatation of the fact - Perf. constatation of the fact and some others.

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Baranov A.N., Parshin P.B. Yazykovye mekhanizmy variativnoj interpretatsii dejstvitel'nosti kak sredstvo vozdejstviya na soznanie [Linguistic Mechanisms of Variable Interpretation of Reality as a Means of Influencing Consciousness]. In: Rol' yazyka v sredstvakh massovoj kommunikatsii [The Role of Language in Mass Media]. Moscow: INION Publ., 1986.

2. Borisova E.G. Interaktivnyj podkhod k opisaniyu leksiki i grammatiki [Interactive Approach in the Description of Lexis and Grammar]. Moscow: Flinta Publ., 2021.

3. Borisova E.G. Interaktivnyj podkhod v lingvistike: predely primenimosti [Interactive Approach in Linguistics: Limits of Applicability]. In: Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii [Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies]. Trudy mezhdunarodnoj konferentsii «Dialog» (Bekasovo, 31 maya – 4 iyunya 2006 g.). Moscow: Russian State Social University Publ., 2006, pp. 84-88.

4. Borisova E.G. Konkurentsiya v recheporozhdenii: chto opredelyaet vybor grammem i leksem v «trudnykh sluchayakh»? [Competition in Speech Production: what Determines the Choice of Grammes and Lexemes in “Difficult Cases”?] In Konkurentsiya v yazyke i kommunikatsii [Competition in Language and Communication], ed. by L.L. Fedorova. Moscow: Russian State Social University Publ., 2017, pp. 92-102.

5. Borisova E.G. Problema vybora vida (pragmaticheskaya tochka zreniya) [Aspect Selection Problem (Pragmatic Point of View)] In: Trudy aspektologicheskogo seminara filologicheskogo fakul'teta MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova. Vol. 3, Ed. by M.Yu. Chertkova. Moscow: Lomonosow State University Publ., 1997.

6. Chafe W. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In: W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986, pp. 261-272.

7. Chafe W. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

8. Geeraerts D. Introduction: Prospectus and Problems of Prototype Theory. In: Linguistics, 1989, N 27(4), pp. 587-612.

9. Glovinskaya M. YA. Teoreticheskie problemy vido-vremennoj semantiki russkogo glagola: dis. ... d-ra filol. nauk [Theoretical Problems of Aspectual-temporal Semantics of the Russian Verb: Diss. ... DSc, Phylology]. Moscow: Lomonosow State University, 1986.

10. Guentchéva Z. Le médiatif en Bulgare [The Mediative in Bulgarian.]. In: L’énonciation médiatisée, ed. by Guentchéva Z. Louvrain: Peeters, 1996, pp. 47-70. (In French)

11. Maslov Yu.S. Ocherki po aspektologii [Essays on Aspectology]. Leningrad: Leningrad State University Publ., 1984.

12. Ochs E., Schegloff E., Thompson S. Interaction and Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

13. Paducheva E.V. Semanticheskie issledovaniya: Semantika vremeni i vida v russkom yazyke. Semantika narrativa [Semantic Studies: Semantics of Time and Aspect in the Russian Language. Semantics of Narrative]. Moscow: Shkola «Yazyki russkoj kul'tury» Publ., 1996.

14. Rappaport G. Aspect and Modality in Contexts of Negation. In: M. Flier & A. Timberlake (eds.) The scope of Slavic aspect. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1985, pp. 194-223.

15. Rassudova O.P. Upotreblenie vidov glagola v sovremennom russkom yazyke [The Use of Verb Aspects in Modern Russian], 2nd ed. Moscow: Russkij yazyk Publ., 1982.

16. Shvedova L.N. Trudnye sluchai funktsionirovaniya vidov russkogo glagola (k probleme konkurentsii vidov) [Difficult Cases of Functioning of Russian Verb Aspects (to the Problem of Competition of Aspects]. Moscow: Lomonosow State University Publ., 1984.

17. Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

18. Zaliznyak A.A., Shmelev A.D. Lektsii po russkoj aspektologii [Lectures on Russian Aspectology]. Slavistische Beiträge. Bd. 353. München: Sagner, 1997.