THE ANALYSIS OF SEMIOTICS OF THE FAMILY LANGUAGE AS A VERBALIZED AREA OF FAMILY DISCOURSE

Iryna Osovska

Abstract


The article deals with the discursive symbolism of elements of the language system which determines the specificity of family discourse semiotics. The symbolism of the „family" sign is predetermined by the case-interpretation. Family language is a set of secondary symbols created by a group and associated with emotional rituals. Integration of family language sign in the area of their functioning – family discourse – is based on the mutual determinism. From the perspective of Charles Peirce’s theory of sign (classifying into three main trychotomies – the sign by itself, the meaning of the sign and its syntagmatic functioning in interaction with others), the research shows the whole complex of characteristics of semiotic entities in intra-familial nominations. The article proves that the "family" precedent is based on the experience within a collective cognitive space – common (recognizable, used and cited by other members of the group – family) memories that determine the identity of a man as a representative of the family recognizing its values, norms, ideas, priorities, tastes and traditions. Family images as archetype and culturally socialized symbols, are the "messengers" of ancient times, and, correlating with contemporary cultural context, are transformed under its influence. The family discourse symbolic meanings are genuinely represented by a set of specific nominative acts

Keywords


discourse; family discourse; family idiolect; symbol; symbolism; precedency; ritual; semiotic

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jackendorff, R. (1995). Languages of the Mind. Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, 216.

Leibnyts, H. V. (1983). Sochynenyia. Vol. 2. Moscow, 686.

Kant, I. (2006). Kritika sposobnosti suzhdenyia. Saint Petersburg, 512.

Karmadonov, O. A. (2017). Mir, napolnennyy smyslom: simvolicheskoe modelirovanie real'nosti. Simvol v psikhologii i psikhoterapii. Moscow, 88.

Uaitkhed, A. N. (1999). Simvolizm, ego smysl i vozdeystvie. Tomsk, 64.

Ulybyna, E. V. (2002). Soznanie i bessoznatel'noe. Problemy znakovogo oposredovaniya. Stavropol, 228.

Vyhotskyi, L. S. (2007). Myshlenie i rech. Moscow, 504.

Yunh, K. (1991). Arkhetip i simvol. Moscow, 300.

Assadzhioli, R. (1994). Psikhosintez. Izlozhenie printsipov i rukovodstvo po tekhnike. Moscow, 286.

Lotman, Yu. M. (2004). Semiosfera. Saint Petersburg, 704.

Vezhbytskaia, A. (1983). Iz knihi «Semanticheskie primitivy». Moscow.

Halutskykh, Y. A. (2008). Yadro leksicheskoy sistemy angliyskogo yazyka: zavisimost' intensivnosti uchastiya v evolyutsionnykh protsessakh ot etimologicheskikh pokazateley. Moscow.

Pirs, Ch. S. (2000). Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya. Moscow, 448.

Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167–190. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra

Bogdanov, V. V. (1989). Klassifikatsiya rechevykh aktov. Lichnostnye aspekty yazykovogo obshheniya, 25–37.

Laclau, E. (1993). Discourse. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, 431–437.

Lanher, S. (2000). Filosofiya v novom klyuche: Issledovanie simvoliki razuma, rituala i iskusstva. Moscow, 287.

Zanadvorova, A. V. (2001). Prozvishhe i obrashhenie v semeynom rechevom obshhenii. Russkiy yazyk segodnya. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 260–267.

Makarov, M. L. (2003). Osnovy teorii diskursa. Moscow, 280.

Batsevych, F. S. (2004). Osnovy komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky. Kyiv, 344.

Dementev, V. V. (2001). Osnovy teoryi nepriamoi kommunikatsii. Saratov, 440.

Hurevych, L. S. (2011). Kognitivnoe prostranstvo metakommunikatsii: osnovy pragmasemanticheskogo izucheniya. Moscow, 400.

Afanasieva, O. M. (2018). Ontohnoseolohiia rytualu v linhvosemiotychnomu i komunikatyvnomu aspektakh (na materiali anhlomovnoi linhvokultury). Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, VI (44 (151)), 8.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Iryna Osovska

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