Article

Name: The deictic units «zdes’» (here), «tut» (here) and «tam» (there) in oral speech: marking of discursive processes

Authors: Аlexandra A. Racheva

Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk, Russian Federation

In the section Linguistics

Abstract: The paper focuses on the study of the functioning of deictic units with spatial semantics «zdes’», «tut» and «tam» in oral discourse. The work involves text materials from in-depth interviews recorded for «Oral history of Irkutsk» project. The main goal is to identify which types of oral discourse usages applied to deictic units are essential and which are peripheral. The prototypical function of these units is traditionally considered as a reference to space, while in narrative mode, they are often used as an anaphora that refers to a spatial antecedent. The analysis of the interview texts revealed that the functions’ repertory is not limited to only these two types; moreover, they do not always form the absolute majority of uses. It has been found that «zdes’» (here) is characterized by almost exclusive spatial uses while the use of the other types is minimal. The spatial interpretation for «tut» (here) is possible only in half of all cases: in oral discourse, this unit often has a temporary or situational meaning. However, «tut» (here) often leads to a greater meaning diversity than «zdes’» (here). In some cases, «tut» can act as a means to organize a narrative that is to perform a discursive function. «tam» (there) is also used half the time with reference to a spatial antecedent. In some cases, the differentiation of spatial and non-spatial uses of «tam» (there) is possible only when based on prosodic criteria. There is about 20 % of nonspatial uses where «tam» (there) is used as an anaphora that refers to the non-spatial antecedent. In addition, this unit is actively used as a means of marking of various discursive processes associated with the evaluation of speaking information: uncertainty or insignificance of explicate information, negative attitude to the described situation, the need to pause to recall the words/phrases, the uses which can be characterized by specific of this information to illustrate a common situation. Thus, in oral discourse, «tut» and «tam» (especially «tam» in most cases) may have discursive functions related to the organization of the narrative.

Keywords: discourse, oral speech, oral discourse, deictic units, discursive functions

Bibliography:

Apresyan V. Yu. Tut, zdes’ i seychas: o vremennykh znacheniyakh deykticheskikh prostranstvennykh slov [Tut, zdes’ and seychas: on the temporal meanings of deictic spatial words]. In: Russkiy yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii [The Russian language in scientific attention]. 2014, no. 27, pp. 9–41.

Apresyan Yu. D. Deyksis v leksike i grammatike i naivnaya model’ mira [Deixis in vocabulary and grammar and the naive model of the world]. Semiotika i informatika. Moscow, 1986, iss. 28, pp. 5–32.

Apresyan Yu. D. Izbrannye trudy: V 2 t. T. 2: Integral’noe opisanie yazyka i sistemnaya leksikografiya [Selected works: in 2 vols. Vol. 2: An integral description of language and systemic lexicography]. Moscow, LRC Publ. House, 1995, vol. 2, 767 p.

Chelovecheskiy faktor v yazyke. Kommunikatsiya, modal’nost’, deyksis [The human factor in the language. Communication, modality, deixis]. T. V. Bulygina (Ed.). Moscow, Nauka, 1992, 280 p.

Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: Opyt kontekstno-semanticheskogo opisaniya [Discursive Russian words: the experience of context-semantic description]. K. L. Kiseleva, D. Payar (Eds). Moscow, Metatekst, 1998, 447 p.

Efremova T. F. Sovremennyy tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka: V 3 t. [Modern explanatory Russian dictionary: in 3 vols]. Moscow, AST, Astrel’, Kharvest, 2006.

Grishina E. A. Zdes’ i tut: korpusnoy i zhestikulyatsionnyy analiz polnykh sinonimov [Zdes’ and tut: corporal and gestural analysis of complete synonyms]. Russian Language and Linguistic Theory (“Russkij yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. 2012, no. 1(23), pp. 39–71.

Kibrik A. A. Modus, zhanr i drugie parametry klassifikatsii diskursov [Modus, genres and other parameters of discourse classification]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2009, no. 2, pp. 3–21.

Kibrik A. E. Ocherki po obshchim i prikladnym voprosam yazykoznaniya (universal’noe, tipovoe i spetsifichnoe v yazyke) [Essays on general and applied questions of linguistics (universal, typical and language-specific)]. Moscow, MSU Publ., 1992, 336 p.

Kodzasov S. V. Issledovaniya v oblasti russkoy prosodii [Research of the Russian prosody]. Moscow, LRC Publ. House, 2009, 496 p.

Levontina I. B. Chastitsy peresprosa i pripominaniya [The particles of echo questions and the anamnesis]. In: Slovo i yazyk: Sb. st. k 80-letiyu akad. Yu. D. Apresyana [Word and language. A collection of articles on the 80th anniversary of Academician Yu. D. Apresyan]. Moscow, LRC Publ. House, 2011, pp. 269–278.

Nikolaeva T. M. Funktsii chastits v vyskazyvanii [The particle functions in utterance]. Moscow, Nauka, 1985, 169 p.

Novyy ob”yasnitel’nyy slovar’ sinonimov russkogo yazyka. Vyp. 2 [New explanatory dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Iss. 2]. Yu. D. Apresyan (Ed.). Moscow, LRC Publ. House, 2000, 488 p.

Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. Tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Explanatory Russsian dictionary]. Moscow, Az”, 1992, 908 p.

Pen’kovskiy A. B. O semanticheskoy kategorii “chuzhdosti” v russkom yazyke [On the semantic category of “alienness” in the Russian language]. In: Ocherki po russkoy semantike [Essays on Russian semantics]. Moscow, LRC Publ. House, 2004, pp. 13–50.

Podlesskaya V. I., Khurshudyan V. G. O leksicheskikh markerakh khezitatsii v spontannoy rechi: uroki armyanskogo [On the lexical markers of hezitation in spontaneous speech: Armenian lessons]. In: Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: Tr. mezhdunar. konf. “Dialog 2006” [Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies: Tr. intern. conf. “Dialogue 2006”]. Moscow, RSUH, 2006, pp. 429–440.

Podlesskaya V. I. O grammatikalizatsii i “pragmatizatsii” markerov rechevogo zatrudneniya: fenomen preparativnoy podstanovki [On the grammaticalization and “pragmatization” of speech difficulty markers: the phenomenon of preparative substitution]. In: Materialy III konf. po tipologii i grammatike dlya molodykh issledovateley [Proceedings of the 3rd conf. on typology and grammar for young researchers]. St. Petersburg, Nestor – Istoriya, 2006, pp. 189–210.

Shmelev A. D. Chastitsa “tam” kak marker nesushchestvennoy detali [Particle “tam” as minor detail marker]. In: Yazyk kak materiya smysla: Sb. st. k 90-letiyu akad. N. Yu. Shvedovoy [Language as a matter of meaning: Coll. of art. to the 90th anniversary of Academician N. Yu. Shvedova]. Moscow, Azbukovnik, 2007, pp. 208–215.

Shvedova N. Yu. Ocherki po sintaksisu russkoy razgovornoy rechi [Essays on the syntax of Russian spoken language]. Moscow, AN SSSR, 1960, 378 p.

Slovar’ russkogo yazyka: V 4 t. 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. [Dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 vols. 2nd ed., rev. and upd.]. A. P. Yevgenyeva (Ed.). Moscow, Rus. yaz., 1981–1984.

Tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka: V 4 t. [Explanatory dictionary of Russian language: in 4 vols]. D. N. Ushakov (Ed.). Moscow, Sov. entsikl., OGIZ, 1935–1940.