Другое на тему Лингвистические средства реализации каузативных конструкций в официально-деловом дискурсе и публицистическом дискурсе. На английском.

Содержание:

Введение:

Заключение:

Any causative situation can be represented as a set of
specific arguments. An argument is a semantic level category that reflects the
semantic role of a name for a particular predicate. Therefore, the semantics of
the causative verb is realized through the interdependence of the argument
structure and the predicative structure.

For the constructs under study, the set of required
arguments includes the causator (causative subject) and causate (causable
object).

The predicative basis of a causative situation is
formed by a causative predicate (a causative verbal lexeme with the meaning of
an impact on an object to change it / motivation for action) and a
non-causative predicate (a full-valued verb lexeme). Since the causative
predicate performs the function of a service, incomplete lexeme, it is
legitimate to speak not about two predicates, but about a causative-reflexive
two-term predicate.

The predicate-argument structure of these structures,
at first glance, completely coincides with the structure of the same name of
other causative structures with the verb make, which have the meaning "to
cause something to happen or cause a particular state or condition" to
cause (contribute) to the fact that something happened, or cause a certain
state or position and "to force someone to do something" to force
someone to do something.

The coincidence, however, concerns only the number of
arguments in the situation, but not their qualitative characteristics.

Фрагмент текста работы:

Chapter 2. Linguistic means of realization of causative constructions in
official business discourse and publicistic discourse. 2.1. The specifics of the implementation of causative constructions in
the official business style Proponents of
the prototype theory accept the postulates of clustering of representatives of
natural categories (biological, cognitive, behavioral, etc.) within the space
of categories at a certain distance from the prototype — that is, from the
categorical mean. In theory, rather, there is a concentration, grouping of
objects around each of the prototypes, but most of these objects do not
coincide with the prototype itself.

The theory
developed simultaneously in several disciplines, until sometime almost
independently of each other: in cognitive psychology, in ethnolinguistics, in
theoretical linguistics and in philosophy. Its roots lie in phenomenological
philosophical concepts — in the works of K. Stumpf, E. Husserl, M.
Merleau-Ponty. The pioneers in the development of this theory were
representatives of cognitive psychology.

By
postulating the internal structure of categories, cognitive semantics allows
the linguist to dwell on the degree of detail in the description of meanings
that is available to him now — without sacrificing the generality and integrity
of the categories used. During such a description, the network of semantic
connections can gradually become more complicated, what was postulated earlier
may come into conflict with the later indicated details — but everything is
saved by the very presumption that we are going from a simpler, more primitive
— to a more subtle one.

In the theory
of prototypes, it is believed that categories are blurred, do not have clear
boundaries, there is a gradation according to the parameter "belonging to
the category". The word is a naming of a thing not absolutely, but only to
a certain extent. People form a concrete or abstract mental image of objects
belonging to a certain category. This image is called a prototype if with its
help a person perceives reality: a member of a category that is closer to this
image will be judged as the best example of his class or more prototypical than
everyone else. Prototypes are tools with which a person copes with an infinite
number of stimuli supplied by reality.