Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.philol.msu.ru/~rlc2010/abstracts/rlc2010_abstracts_sec05.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Thu Oct 21 01:13:51 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Tue Oct 2 17:20:05 2012 Êîäèðîâêà:

V.

. .
(, ) amirova2006@mail.ru , , ,

Summary. The subject of this paper is extensive studies in the area of text linguistics and specific of those studies in contemporary Russian and Kazakhstan philology. 1. , , -- (), , . «» , 60- 70- . « ». , , . 2. 1980- . , , , , . , , , , -- , « , , «-» [4: 7]. « » «» , . , , . 1970-, 1980-, 1990- 2000- . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . . . 4. , . . -- . : ; - . 5. , , « , , , , , ( ) » [2: 129]. , « » [2: 14]. , , -- 222 -. 6. . , , , , , , , , [1: 14]. , -- , . [5: 87­88]. 7. , , , . , , . . [6] . . [3], , () , , , . -. 8. , XX -- XXI . , , , , () , -- , .


1. . . // . X . -, 30 -- 5 2003 . / . . . , . . , . . . ., 2003. . 9 ­ 1 7 . 2. . . : . , 2002. 3. . . . , 2002. 4. . . - . . 2. . ., 1982. 5. . . : . . , 2003. 6. . . -- . , 1998.


V.

-
. .
() lingv@phil.kubsu.ru , , , -, -

Summary. The paper deals with textological and stylistic functions of periodical forms of speech. , . , . . , , , , , . , , , , , , . . , « », , « , - », . ., , , -- -- , . . «» «, », , . . , , , . , , . , . . , . : 1) ( ), 2) ( , ), 3) , , 4) . -- . , . . , , - , , , . . . (, ) . -, . -, «» ( ), . , , : , , , , . - , - , . , , . , (). . , , , , -, , -, ( ) , , ( ) . ., ( ) . , . . , , , . , , . , , , , , . , . . . -, . , . , , ( ) . -- . , . (), . , 223


V.

() . , ,

- , -- , -- .


. .
- () / Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitÄt MÝnchen Elena.Graf@slavistik.uni-muenchen.de, elena.graf@gmx.de , ,

Summary. The purpose of this paper is to focus on how to sharpen the definition and description of interjections and contribute to our understanding of what they are doing in discourse. Form and function of interjections are usually very closely connected. From the prosodic properties of interjections, such as tones, tone pitch or reduplication, often derive their pragmatic functions. 1. . . -. , , , - . (. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [12], [13], [14], [15] . .) , , , . . , , . . [4]. - , , . 2. , 30- . , , , , (!, ! . .) . (! . .). , , , , . (! . .). , . , . , . , , . 3. . . . . , , . , , , ( « »), ( « ») ( « ») , , , , . «». - (c. [1], [5], [8], [12]). 4. , 224 , ( , ). ( , . . ) ( ) . , , - (; ; , - .). (1) , ! ! ( « »). (2) -- , . -- . -- . ( « »).

(1). O:

(2). O:

(3) -- , , 14 ! -- ! ( « »). (4) -- , , , , , . , , [ / ] ... ... . ? -- , , . -- O. ( « »).

5. , , , ( ) . .

(3). O:

(4). O:


1. . . . . ., 2002. 2. . . , // . . ., 1 9 8 6 . . 6 1 1 ­ 6 2 3 .


V. 3. . . . . , 1966. 4. ., . . // . IV . , 2004. . 39­47. 5. . ( ) // BeitrÄge der EuropÄischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 11. (Die Welt der Slaven. SammelbÄnde / . 33). MÝnchen, 2008. S. 44­52. 6. . . . . ... . . . ., 1995. 7. . . . . ., 2005. 8. . . , . ., 2008. 9. . . (. .). . . 1. ., 1980. 10. . . // . 1928. 2 . . 5 ­ 2 7 . 11. BÝhler K. Sprachtheorie. Jena, 1934. 12. Ehlich K. Interjektionen. TÝbingen, 1986. 13. Fries N. Die Wortart `Interjektion' // Cruse D. A., Hundsnurscher F., Job M., Lutzeier P. R. (Hrsg.). Lexikologie. Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von WÆrtern und WortschÄtzen. Band 21. (1. Halbband.). Berlin; New York. S. 654­657. (= HandbÝcher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft; 21.1). 14. Isacenko A. V. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Formenlehre. MÝnchen, 1962. 15. Reisigl M. SekundÄre Interjektionen. Frankfurt am Main, 1999. (= Arbeiten zur Sprachanalyse; 33).

*
. .
. . . () rudi2007@yandex.ru ,

Summary. In the paper the discrepancies between the repeated Da `yes' and repeated Net `no' in a spoken Russian dialogue are listed with the reference to the usage of the single Da and the single Net. 1. () ( ). , . . . 1) , , 2) , . 2. , (. . -) -- 69% . (- ). 2 -- , . . ; 3 (--È), -- (È--) -- (*-È). + : ( , + 14% ). , +, -- (61%) (17%). -- `' (, , , ), , (. [4]).
1. ? 2. ! 3. . -- -- -- 4.

+ , . « » (. [2: 404­406], [3: 100-101], , , -!) +. , , , 2 + (--, -!). , , , , -- ( ). 3. 2 , 3, -- , + . : -- 88%, -- 10%. +. , - (! ! -- -?), , , +, 2 2 . 3 +. , , , `' , , . + , + , (. ).
2


. ? ? ? , , ? 5. , ? 6. , ...



3

+
-- ----. *---? -- *---? ? *---, ...

-- -. -- -? -- *-? ? *-, ... * , -? *-, ...

-- --. *--? -- *--? ? *--, ...

* , --? * , ---? *--, ... *---, ...

, 3 : ? , -

; , + (. [1]).

___________________________________ * 08­06­00371 « , ».

225


V.

4. , , , + , +. , ( +) -- , ( , [4], ). , , , : 1) P Z ( . )), 2) P, 3) Z . , 1 -- ; 4 -- - , ; 6 -- , - ( ...). (, ) () ( . [1]). (), -

(); , , . , ( ) (`' ) -- , .. . , « », (. , -! , ! .). , ( ... ... ...) , -- . + +.


1. . . // '2010. ., 2010 ( ). 2. . ., . . 500 «» (- ) // . . ., 2009. 3. . ., . . , nein, no: // «'2009». .: 2009 (= http://www.dialog-21.ru/dialog2009/materials/pdf/16.pdf). 4. . . ? // «'2001». ., 2001 (= http://www.dialog-21.ru/materials/archive.asp?id=6675&y= 2001&vol=6077).


. .
. . dedova@philol.msu.ru , , ,

Summary. h report highlights specific features of the hyperlinks which are considered as the subject of linguistic research. , , 60- . , [1]. . -- , , . , . , , . , : (, . .), , «» [3]. , . , . , «» «» : , URL, , , . 226 . , . , , , . , , . . . [2], , -- . . , « », . , ( , «» ). : , . , , . , , . ,


V.

, () , . , ? , . , , , . , (, , ). , «» . , , . ., , . , . -.

. -- -- . -- , . , , , -- (, « (. )» [http://www.litera.ru/slova/ioffe/kuzm.html] .). , , , ( ) .


1. . . . ., 2008. 2. . . . ., 2002. 3. Landow G. P. Hypertext 2.0. The Convergence of Contemporary Critical theory and Technology, Baltimore; London, 1997.


. .
. . . () gazolotova@mail.ru , , , , ,

Summary. The talk deals with the grammar semantics of tense-aspectual verbal forms, sentences and texts. Language resources that form communicative registers of speech are discussed. Analysis of some concrete texts is supposed to be performed in order to demonstrate language resources to provide text composition. 1. -- , . , , - , , -- . 2. . . 3. , . . 4. , . 5. - - , . 6. .

( )
. .
- () aleksander.kiklewicz@uwm.edu.pl , ,

Summary. The author discusses the classification of speech acts and proposes his own idea which is founded on the difference of three levels of speech acts categorization. The author distinguishes ten binary oppositions on a general category level. They are hierarchically ordered: inventional vs. conventional, communication vs. non-communication, representative vs. performative, etc. In addition, the author devotes his attention to chosen basic speech acts categories and presents the cultural changes of speech acts on the example of request. , , ) ; ) ( ); ) . -- -- ( ): 1) (), , , vs. , vs. , vs. .; 2) , . . , , , , , , , , .; 227


V.

3) (), , . : ( ); , , , . . ) , . . , , () . (). : ) : 1. (); 1.1. ; 1.1.1. 1.1.1.1. ; 1.1.1.1.1. ; 1.1.1.1.1.1. ; 1.1.1.1.1.2. ; 1.1.1.1.2. ; 1.1.1.2. (); 1.1.2. ; 1.1.2.1. ; 1.1.2.1.1. ; 1.1.2.1.1.1. ; 1.1.2.1.1.2. ; 1.1.2.1.2.; 1.1.2.2. ; 1.2. (); 2. ; 2.1. ; 2.2. . , -- , -, , -, . . , .


. .
kimli09@mail.ru , , ,

Summary. The paper addresses the issue of variant-interpretative functioning of the text in a recipient's discourse, which is an integral part of the overall space of linguistic variantology. A methodology for describing the discussed phenomenon is devised and the suggested units of interpretative functioning of the text are explored. , , , , , : - , . . . , , « -- , , , ()» [1: 365]. -- : . -, . -, « ()», , « -- ». -, , . -, , (-) . , -, ( ). , , 228 - [3]. . . , «- - » [4: 33], -- - . , - - . -- -- , , . . , [3]. , , , - , -- -- . - , -- , « -- » « -- », -- «» «» , / , , , -


V.

. [2]. « -- » . -- . -- - . -- - , . - , , - , - -- , - - .

« -- » « () -- ()». , . , . , , .


1. . . . ., 1998. 2. . ., . . - ( ) // . . . . 34. 27. , 2009. . 12­20. 3. : . ; , 2006. 4. . . // . 1984. 2. . 31­42.


. .
() jelizaveta.kostandi@mail.ee , ,

Summary. On a role of the temporal category in forming of oral text. The significance of the temporal category in the process of forming an oral text is considered in the report on the basis of records of the contemporary oral speech. The correlation of temporal parameters and characteristics of a subject of speech are analyzed: position of subject, purpositive attitude, orientation to the definite addressee. The language form of the paragraphs of a text and the structure of a text depend on the modeled position of a subject in the temporal space. , 2002­2009 . -- , , . . , , , . . , , , , , , -, - . , , ( ) - , . - . , - , / . , -- , , , . , , , . , , , , , . , [1] ( -- ). , . , , , -- , , , .


1. . ., . ., . . . ., 1998.


. .
() leb48@mail.ru , ,

Summary. Stages in the building of metaphorical meanings of words in fiction conditioned by existence of metaphorical contexts of different volume that are represented explicitly or implicitly. , , «» : 229


V.

- , , . , , . , , « » [2: 234], ( , ) (, -). , , . . . - (, ), - ( ) - ( ) [1: 125]. , ( ) , . - «»: , «- -- - -- ». , , . , . «» . -, -- « , » ( -- « , , »): , ...; , / ; ... - / . -, -- « -.; », -- , : , / -- . / -- -- / , / , / . , : , , / . . - -- « (, ), , » [3: 15]. , , ,

, , , . . , « » . («») , , : ... . . , , , , , , , , -- . .: ... ...; ; , , . , ... , , , : (.: ). -- . . : -- «» ( ), ( , . . , « , , »), «, » ( ...). , , . , . « » , ( ): -- , , , ? -- , -- , , . . . «»: ... , , ... , , . , , , , .


1. . . . ., 2003. 2. . . . ., 1959. 3. . . . ., 2004.

?
. / Arto Mustajoki
() arto.mustajoki@helsinki.fi ,

Summary. The paper deals with the most fundamental methodological issue of linguistics: on which basis can we say something about the features of a given language? Should it be on the basis of native-speaker intuitions or actual language use? The question has become increasingly important now that linguists have large linguistic corpora at their disposal. « », . . . (langue) (parole), langage. (competence) 230 (performance). -- : , , «» ? . ,


V.

X , , Y? : Y , (1) ( ); (2) ( ). . : langue, , ( , ). : parole ( ~ , ~ ~ . .). ( ) . , , , , () . , . . ( - , ) ( ) ; , langue, parole (). parole , , , , ; , «» , . (parole, , , ) , . - , , parole . langue parole, . . . , / , , . , , (parole) . , , , , , ( ) . , : parole () langue () . , :

( ) ( langue)? , , ; -- . , : , : ( ) 243000 . , , , : (156), (12), (114), (92 ) (. [3]). . , - -. ( , ). , (. [3])? -, , , , , . . . ? : , parole (), langue. : parole langue . , , .


1. ., . // : / . . etc. , 2008 (= Slavica Helsingiensia. 34). S. 7­24 (http://www.slav.helsinki.fi/publications/sh/sh34/2.pdf). 2. ., . , // Integrum: . ., 2006. . 50­75 (http://www.helsinki.fi/ ~mustajok/ pdf/integrum_ru.pdf). 3. ., . - // : / . . etc. , 2008 (= Slavica Helsingiensia. 34). . 247­275 (http://www.slav.helsinki.fi/ publications/sh/sh34/16.pdf).


. .
. . . () yelenon@mail.ru , , , / , , ,

Summary. The talk discusses semantic effects that result from mutual intra- and inter-level action of different categorical meanings. The idea that is proposed is that some categorical interaction that may be found in texts would reflect some similar interaction that realizes in the language system. 1. . , . . . , , , « », . 2. . . -- , 231


V.

, , ( ). 3. (. , . , . .). (, ), , . 4. . . . . : «- », -- ( ). 5. , . . . . , , - . . . , , . . . . , -- , , , , -- -- (, , ), -- , , . 6. , , : -- . . , , . . 7. . . , . . . ,

, , , , . « » . . , , , - , , « »; , , , « ». 8. . , « » (, , ); , . 9. , , , , / , / , . 10. , , . , « / -- », -- . : 1- , . . , - , -; -- , , . , , . 11. - ; , . , « ».


. .
. . . () onipenko_n@mail.ru , , , , ,

Summary. The talk deals with the complex sentences organized with help of such Illocutionary conjunctions as , , . The idea that the semantics of these conjunctions should be interpreted on the base of modus categories. 1. , , , , . 2. , , . , , 232 . 3. (, , , ) - -, - -, - - . «» ( , = ` , ... , ...'). (, . . ) , «» .


V.

4. . . , . . , , -- . , , . . . « », , [1: 59]: , ; , . . . , , , ( , -- , -- , () , : ?? , -- : ` , , , '). 5. , , , , , -- -- . - - -

, ( ). «» , , , () , ( ... , ; ... , ). 6. . . , , , . . , , , ( . . ), , . , , , , ; . 7. .



1. . . - . ., 2008.


. .
() panchenko@list.ru , , ,

Summary. Y. Grishkovets's texts space is a structural space with the characteristics of centralization and orderly multiplication. Compositional text variants making this space are in synonymous and / or hierarchic relationships. , , , . : 1) , -- ; 2) , ; 3) -. . : . , , / . ( , -- ). . -, , , ; ; . -, ( ; , ). : ( / ), ; ; ; . , , : ­ , ( , , / ). ­ , / , , , . , , , . . , . , . , . «» , , ( . , , , , , «». : « ! !»). «» (1. ` - || - - || - - , || - - , '; 2. ', - - '). . . : : , , 233


V.

( ; ; ; , , -- «»). , «», . , , . «» . , . , ; (« »). , , -- ` / ', : ... . : « , , , , , . <...> , ,

. , , ( -- ) . , , . , `': , ; . , , , , . ` / ' `'. , -- , , , (., , . , . , . .).


. .
- (, ) liza_nada@mail.ru , , ,

Summary. The aspects of vocal activity in satiric-humorous stories of began of XX century are examined. Conclusion about predominance of vocal situations in which talking expresses the ideas without an address to the interlocutor is drawn. . . , , : 1) , 2) , , 3) ( ), 4) ( ), 5) , , 6) () , 7) . , , -- [2: 4]. , , . , - . . , , : «1. // -. . 2. -. , , . .; -. 3. , ». : , . -- , -- (, ). -- , , -- (, ). , , . `': -- « »: : -- ... (, ); 1 -- «, , » ( , , : -- ... ... ? (, ) -- ? -- <> (, ). `': 4 -- «, , , ; »: , , (, ); 234 -- « »: [] . , , , -- «» (, ); 1 (.) -- «, »: (..., , -- , , . -- ? ? ! -- - (, ). , , , . , , . .: 1 -- « , , »: , , , . -- -- ?! -- (, «»); -- « »: ... , , , , , -- (, ); -- « , »: -- ... ! -- , (, ). . , : -- «, »: -- , , -- , , , , , . -- , (, ); -- «, , , , »: -- , -- (, ); -- «, , , »: , , . -- , -- . -- -- . -- -? -- (,


V.

); -- « , , »: . -- , , -- . -- , (, ); -- « »: -- , -- . -- , , , , , . -- , ! , ! -- (, ). , , -

(, . .), , . , « » [1: 144].


1. . . -- : . , 2003. 2. . . . ., 1981.

( )
.
. . uarice@gmail.com , ,

Summary. The goal of this paper is twofold: to define the term modus, as related to pragmatics, connotation, and evaluation, and to identify how modus is expressed in Russian in order to provide guidelines for teaching its use for English speakers learning this language. Six main techniques for expressing modal meanings have been identified so far: through vocabulary, grammar, word-formation, intonation, theme and rheme, and context. The secondary goal of this paper is to determine which methods for expressing modal meanings are primarily implicit or explicit. The main criterion for choosing research material is the potential for foreigners to misinterpret the meaning of native speakers in specific contexts, as the meaning expressed is entirely or partially dependent upon modus. . . . , . . , . . ., -- . , , , , . : -, , , , , -, . : , , , , (-) . : (, -- ), (, , ), ( , ), , (, ), , ( ). : () () -- : ? ( ), , ? , , , , , : , , . ? , , : , , . , (), . . , , 5 5 : ! 7 ! . .: ! . . -- , . .


1. . . . ., 1977. 2. . . - : () : . ., 2000. 3. . . // . 2007. 2. . 95­101. 4. . . - ( ). ., 2008. 5. . . . c. . . ... . . . ., 1995.

-
.
(-, ) ts_sarantsatsral@yahoo.com , , , , -

Summary. The paper gives the semantic-pragmatical characteristic of prompting to joint actions and means of its expression in Russian language. The speech act of prompting to joint action is original on meaning and on expression means. . , , , , . , -- , . , . . , 235


V.

, , , : 1) , , . . ; 2) 1- 2- , , . . . - , . . ( ), ( ) . ( ) : , . , , . , , : , ! -- , « » , . , , ( ), «» ( ), «» ( ). . , . - : , , ; , ; , . , , . -- - , . -

. , -- . : () , . / ? , , , . - -- , , , , . : ! ( ), ! . : . ! ? . . , , . , . . , : 1) 1 . . . . . . ; 2) () 1. . . . ; 3) . : . . , . , .


1. . ., . // . 1994. 4. . 55­59. 2. . . . . ., 1 9 7 2 . 3. . . . . ... . . . ., 1982. 4. . , . . ... - . . ., 1993. 5. . ., . . : . ., 1986.

: , , ,
. .
. . olga_frolova@list.ru , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Summary. In the paper the semantic and grammatical characteristics of a concept «event» are viewed. A syntactic nature of an event depends on characteristics of a subject and predicate. A predicate is usually expressed by the past tense forms of perfective verbs, denoting action. An event «is composed» by objective (dictum) and subjective (modus) parts. The author marks out 3 types of events: a) verbal, b) nonverbal, c) one being reflected in a speech of a personage. : , , . -- «, , , , ... || , , , » [10, . 3: 173]. , , , [6]; [3]; [9]; [11]; [4]; [2]; [7]; [8]; [1]. . 236 . . : 1) -- / , / , / ; 2) -- / , / ; 3) ; 4) / ;


V.

5) - ; 6) / . , -- . , , , . . . : . - , , -- . [2]; [5]. / . [1: 83]. : ) ; ) . / : . , (+ / ­), . : -- ( -- ) , . : ) , ) ) , . . , . «» ().

1 ., 3 . . . . (, , ). 3 . . . , . , -- . . , . : ) (, ); ) ( ); ) - ; ) « » -- .


1. . . // . ., 2006. . 33­160. 2. . . : . . . ., 1988. 3. . . // . ., 1972. . 7­85. 4. . . . ., 1 9 8 2 . 5. . . . ., 1970. 6. . . // . . . . . 1948. . 7. . 4. . 303­316. 7. . . : . . ., 1996. 8. . . . ., 2004. 9. . . // . ., 1972. . 86­157. 10. : 4 . / . . . . 2- ., . . ., 1981­1984. 11. . . , , ( ). ., 1981.


. .
() kafedrarf@mail.ru. , , ,

Summary. A literary dialogue is an open system, which is movable. The report is devoted to revealing the functions of the dialogue in a literary text. , . , . . . . . . . . , (« », «, », «», «», « » .). : 1) -; 2) ; 3) ; 4) . . . . . « ». , , . -- , . -- , «». , « », , «». . . , . : . , . «» , , . , : 237


V.

-- , , -- . -- ... , , ... - ... -- - , -- . , , , : -- ... ... -- . -- . -- -? -- ? , . , ? , ... : « ?» , : -- , -- , . . -- , . , ? -- ? -- . -- , . ? -- -- . , , , ... . -- . . : , - ; .

-- -, -- . -- - . -- - ... , . ! , . : , , ( -- - ...). , . , , . . , , , . , . . : , , , . : -- , . ( ; ; ; ). . , ... , -- . , , : , - ... , , .

238