Фактор клишированности в описании словосодержащего семиозиса: норма и границы языка

Abstract

The article presents a number of observations on the methods of not quite convincing definition of the " language norm" and "language boundaries" within the framework of the traditional language model, the main methodological constant of which is a priori confidence that the content ("meaning", "meaning", "semantics", " content plan, etc.) exists in direct connection with the verbal substrate. As a result, contradictory statements arise: “The norm exists objectively”, at the same time “The norm exists subjectively”; "Norm is single", at the same time "Norm is multiple"; “The norm is manifested in synchrony”, at the same time “The norm is manifested in diachrony”; “Language coincides with the norm”, at the same time “Language does not coincide with the norm”; “Language belongs to the researcher”, at the same time “Language belongs to the user”; “Language has unity”, at the same time “Language consists of varieties of a language”. To solve the same problems, the concept of cliché and semiotic action is proposed as tools, which more correctly reflect the essence of natural speaking-writing and at the output give a more harmonious picture (model) of what is happening. According to the communicative model, in natural communication, the source of content produced and received is personal semiotic influence (polymodal, multifactorial, multichannel, not necessarily word-containing). In order to achieve changes in external cognitive states (which have not yet occurred at the time of the action, but are only planned), the semiotic actor makes attempts to influence, manifesting actional modes of his consciousness under given conditions in complex ways. In view of this, in a natural act, the novelty sought by the actor is generated and understood, which constitutes the meaning formation of a given semiotic act. The concept of cliché in relation to words and other "signs", assuming the procedural (actional) principle of formation of any semiotic content, allows us to separate the clichwd (mechanical, meaningless, behavioral) "language", including verbal, from the meaning-forming semiotic influence, to emphasize the deep conventionality of construction "systemic" and "universal" "language".