Коммуникативный аспект местоименной вербализации пространственного дейксиса в татарском и русском языках

Abstract

Introduction. One of the important problems of contemporary linguistics is the incomplete correspondence between some linguistic categories and actual conditions of language use, which makes it difficult to apply scientific concepts in pragmatic terms. In this regard, some categories of classical linguistics require further clarification in the light of new scientific achievements. Goals. So, the article aims at analyzing deictic microsystems of languages different in origin and grammatical type through synergistic research approaches with due account of achievements of classical linguistics and data on the new communication theory. Materials and methods. The work employs comprehensive methodology: comparison of the Russian and Tatar deictic verbal means is accompanied by cross-situational/component analysis applicable in communication theory. The combination of new and traditional methods makes it possible, firstly, to optimize the traditional time-tested methods of comparing languages of different origins, and, secondly, to correct results of the comparative study in a communicative aspect. The study focuses on materials of the Tatar and Russian languages, since the latter coexist in one region and closely interact via Russian-Tatar bilingualism. Results. The use of comprehensive communicative/linguistic techniques yields a described universal action (deictic) category — implementing spatial coordination of participants and speech objects — for languages of different types. The study identifies spatial communicative indicators common to languages, features of action processes and means of their expression. Particular attention is paid to differences in the implementation of spatial deixis in the languages compared. Conclusions. Grammatically and communicatively, deixis is central to Russian and Tatar pronominal systems. Regular deictic means include key types of pronouns, such as personal, possessive, personal-demonstrative, and demonstrative ones. Functional qualities of all other pronouns and non-pronominal deictics are determined through relations with these central types.