UDC 821.512.111(052)
N.I. REC, A.R. GUBANOV
CAUSAL AND CAUSATIVE RELATIONS*
Approaches to studying the ontological essence of the category of causality are considered.
N.I. RETZ, A.R. GUBANOV CATEGORY OF CAUSALITY: THE CAUSAL AND THE CAUSATIVE CONNECTION
Key words: category, causality, causality, causative, universal meaning, semantic relationships.
The approaches to the study of the ontological nature of the category of causality.
Cause-and-effect relationships have universal significance, since every action is motivated, caused by some reason, and there are no phenomena that do not give rise to certain consequences. The terms causality and causativeness are often correlated with the cause-and-effect category in linguistic literature without their clear definition, and this is reflected in the establishment of equivalents in comparative studies.
The study of causal relations, in particular, is closely related to such concepts as “presupposition” and “implication”, which are ambiguously understood in linguistics. “Among the meanings conveyed by a sentence-statement, presupposition and implication must be distinguished...”. In the dissertation of I.T. Tarasova's identified meanings have a broad and free content: presupposition is the initial thought (initial meaning), and implication is the meaning-consequence (following thought). V.A. approaches the definition of presupposition from a slightly different direction. Zvegintsev, who believes that “ philosophical definition presupposition, also used in linguistics, boils down to the fact that presupposition should be understood as conditions whose satisfaction is necessary for the sentence as a whole to be a statement, question, command, etc. If these conditions are not met, then the sentence is considered incorrect, false, ungrammatical, inconsistent with the purpose of the statement, and inappropriate.” Presupposition is associated with a “hidden category”, which has not received its formal expression, but is considered as some obligatory fund of general knowledge. When analyzing presuppositions, attention is also drawn to the fact that it is impossible with logical presuppositions to describe the entire set of relations of “natural texts” or statements and, in particular, to establish the truth or falsity of sentences that depend on general ideas speakers and listeners and from the situation, therefore, another category of presuppositions should be distinguished - pragmatic, which has very unclear boundaries. Indeed, the essence of the problem of presuppositions is to distinguish different layers in the sense of a sentence. And therefore, the distinction between the content of a statement and its presupposition is based on two premises: 1) in the “meaning” of a sentence, two different layers must be distinguished; 2) one of the layers of meaning belongs to the sentence and constitutes its semantic content, and the other is taken outside the boundaries of the sentence (or statement) and forms the conditions for its correctness.
* The study was carried out under government contract No. 16.740.11.01.19 Federal Target Program “Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel innovative Russia» for 2009-2013
th understanding... . When faced with the problem of presupposition, the question arises as to whether the presuppositions of a sentence in one language are preserved when translated into another language, i.e. Are presuppositions universal? As a comparison of the Russian and Chuvash languages shows (in the area of relations that interest us), we can only talk about the relative universality of presuppositions (different structural qualities of the compared languages, differences in cultures that determine extra-linguistic knowledge). Causal relations can be represented in the form of an implication formula, which combines two components - the premise (antecedent) and the consequence (consequent). It should be noted that the concepts of “presupposition” and “implication” are often confused, and therefore, it seems to us, the differences between them should be sought in the fact that implication is a logical operation (relates to the structure of the sentence), and presupposition is a non-logical scheme associated with subtext.
A semantic relation, as content, is a complex denotation, a non-elementary situation, including relation (P), members of the relation (a) and (b). Various semantic relations are oriented in their own way to the speaker through connection with logical operations along the line of the main universal premise. The main difference between classes of meanings, as already mentioned, is the quantitative indicator of denotative situations. Meanings reflecting one denotative situation are formed, as S.A. emphasizes. Shuvalov, in cases: a) when the author of the text does not have comprehensive information about the reflected situation or the author of the text finds it difficult to present a verbal image adequate to the reflected denotative situation (Either..., or...; It cannot be said that..., but also...); b) when the author of the text, instead of an erroneous idea of the reflected situation, offers a correct, in his opinion, image of the corresponding situation (Not we..., but she...); c) when the author cares about the complete and vivid reflection of the denotative situation and resorts... to the use of association or gives various images of it (He blushes... as they blush...; He didn’t need..., that is ...). All presented types of this class of meanings are associated only with the author’s desire for either accuracy or figurativeness of the verbal image, and not with the peculiarity of the reflected situation.
A fundamentally different type of relationship is represented by meanings of the second class, which, in turn, are divided into two groups: 1) relations of the type “dictum - dictum” established between dictum predications; 2) relations of the “modus - dictum” type, established between modus and dictum predications. It should be noted that the terms “modus” and “dictum” were introduced into linguistics by S. Bally. In linguistic studies, the concept of dictum is presented unambiguously, but the concept of mode is ambiguous. In particular, T.V. Shmeleva distinguishes the following categories of mode: a) actualization categories (“the speaker correlates the fragments of reality he describes with the communication situation - its participant, place, time”); b) qualifying categories (“the speaker qualifies what is being communicated on the basis of his ideas”); c) social categories (“attitude of the speaker to the interlocutor”). Based on the provisions of T. A. Kolosova and M.I. Cheremisina, the mode represents “a verbalized subjective interpretation of a dictum event, which is given in the aspect of modality (i.e., the possibility, probability of an event and the degree of reliability of the message about it) or in the aspect of the nature of mental processing of ideas (information) about a dictum event.” As we see, when considering the mode, the complexity associated with the presence of multi-
planfulness of this concept. Common element This concept, as it seems to us, is an element of the semantic organization of meaning, conveying the assessment of the content of the statement on the part of the speaker. And the semantic relations we are considering can take the form of both “dictum - dictum” and “modus - dictum”, i.e. they can be based on the reflection of two denotative situations that are dictum in nature or modus-dictum in nature. The reflected situations consist in relations of implication. Causal relations are relations of dependence. Dependence here is understood in the sense that it is always possible to name a component that is conditioned and that conditions it, and therefore also dependent on the conditioned. Dependency relations do not exclude the possibility of inclusion in causal and causative relations. At first glance, the characteristics of the latter coincide with causal ones. The direct components of a causative situation (CS) are at least two microsituations interconnected by the relation of causation or causation. O.A. adheres to the same point of view (the causation relationship is a synonym for the cause-and-effect relationship). Khlebtsova in her work devoted to causative verbs: “In this dissertation, causativeness is considered as a semantic property of lexical and syntactic units express cause-and-effect relationships between the realities of objective reality." In this work, in connection with the use of causatives, the elements of the considered (causative) situation are recognized following parameters: “causation”, “method of causation”, “result of causation”, “subject of causation”, “object of causation”. Noting the uniqueness of causative situations, G.A. Zolotova characterizes the components of the corresponding situations as follows: “The causative agent of an action is usually a person, an agent, whose causative action is arbitrary and purposeful. If the place of the causator is taken by the name of an abstract concept, the causative construction appears in its variety - involuntary causation." Regarding this variety, the author, on the very next page of this work, considers it necessary to make an explanation: “Obviously, the possibility of such a transformation (The hostess forced us to leave the house - The hostess’s ill will forced us to leave the house) (what?) serves as a criterion for distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary causation, and It should be noted that the latter variety is not at all typical for the causation of action,” since the involuntary variety of autocausation (autocausative constructions) is organized, according to G.A. Zolotov, based on causators like “from + Rod.p.” “because of + Rod.p.” and so on. As we see, the phenomenon of causation is distinguished on a structural-semantic basis, and the types of causation and causality must be defined in accordance with the structural-semantic meaning of causative and causal models. As a comparison of the practical material of the Russian and Chuvash languages shows, the interlingual metalanguage of causation is such parameters of the structure of causation as incentive, command, prohibition, etc. “The category of causation,” as D. Buranov notes, “expresses general causation, which is characterized by the fact that the subject compels, compels, requests, orders, begs the object to perform an action.” Causation and causation are carried out in various ways in the Russian and Chuvash languages. It is known that the category of causation is characterized by complexity and diversity. The category of causation in the Russian language cannot be recognized as grammatical, since the meaning of causation is
tiveness does not have a permanent form of expression assigned to it and categorical semantics is expressed by a set of means of different levels. The structure of the corresponding category in the Russian and Chuvash languages is characterized by certain lexical-grammatical, structural-semantic and lexical-semantic features. The main signs for the “delimitation” of causation and causation, as it seems to us, are: 1) the type of situations reflected in them (situation constants); 2) the semantic-syntactic structure of sentences expressed in these situations (the way of expressing propositions - collapsed propositions in sentences with causal semantics compared to causative constructions and their deployment He pushed me. She didn’t come because the weather was bad - She didn’t come because it was bad weather.
Thus, causative and causal connections are binary in nature, i.e. corresponding connections presuppose the presence of two facts or events that are in close unity with each other; the sequence of events/phenomena/facts described is inherent in the very process of generating a consequence, but a causative connection involves the transfer of knowledge, not the affirmation/denial of something, but an inducement to some action/change in the state of an object. Therefore, causation is “causing” through conditioning, and causativeness is “causing” through motivation. Causal connections determine the relationships between events (objective situations - proper causal relationships) and the relationships between propositions, each of which consists of a subject and a predicate and each of the propositions can have one or another degree of expression. In general, modeling speech behavior speaker in causal situations, which consists primarily in choosing the means of expressing his intention, one should also take into account those consequences that arise from the conditions of communication, from taking into account the situation of communication. The speaker tries to imagine how the listener will understand him when using different means to express certain meanings of conditionality. The entire corresponding model of speech production can be represented at the semantic level and at the level preceding the semantic (deep-semantic) level, which is associated with extra-linguistic reality. It is known that the speaker, having in mind some representation of the extra-linguistic situation, selects linguistic means, forming several representations of the next level. Consequently, the current model of speech activity, which claims to be sufficiently complete, must also include components that describe the deep semantic level.
Based on the factual material of differently structured languages (Russian and Chuvash), it is possible to imagine a two-level seme model of causal relations (equipollent opposition: “direct conditionality” - co-existence1 and “reverse conditionality” - event2. In linguistic literature, when interpreting the ontological essence of conditionality, often an event as a term is identified with the concept of proposition. An event, unlike a proposition, does not always cover the entire judgment and does not break down into its component elements. The main difference between event and prepositive semantic types, as N.D. Arutyunova points out, comes down to the following: event meaning unites everything that characterizes the environment of a person’s immersion in the world, and the prepositive meaning unites everything that is the result of the immersion of reality into the consciousness of a person... As we see, N.D. Arutyunova substantiates the thesis that the concept has
three localization features: a) localization in a certain human sphere; b) the event occurs at some time; c) it (the event) takes place in some real space. The above characteristic of the concept “event” is reflected in the structure of integral conditional relations: events connected by a causal connection have all those coordinates that are inherent in events. Events that form conditional relationships can be spontaneous and intensional, they can include other events, and one event is always the cause of another, i.e. in a conditional situation, one of the events is conditioning, and the other is conditioned. However, these event meanings do not capture the full content of the implicational proposition. Very often, in an integral sense, the second event takes on the structure of a fact, for “the more obvious the causal relations, the easier they are introduced into the structure of a simple proposition, and thereby the fact.” However, a fact does not replace every proposition, but only verified, “true” ones, i.e. cannot be expressed by sentences that express a hypothetical modality (If..., then...). Semantic types of conditioning factors - prepositive, event-forming, fact-forming - can be expressed in the same way (by complete, incomplete nominalizations). The degree of proximity of the semantic factors of the integral meaning is often determined by the context (in cases of convergence of conditional relations): With the coming to power of the “democrats”, life in the country did not improve - the temporal sequence of events or causal connection was updated (the case of neutralization of the opposition of event and fact-forming meanings). And depending on the appropriate interpretation, the nominalization with coming to power can be qualified as an event or as a fact.
Particular attention should be paid to cases where quasi-causal meaning may arise in the semantics of sentences. In the linguistic literature there is no single list of linguistic units expressing the meaning of causality. The condition for the formation of causal semantic relations is discursive data: the relationship between semantic and pragmatic presumptions. Here are examples: He is difficult to recognize because of his suit (a) and He is difficult to recognize in this suit (b). Let's introduce negations into the sentences: It is not true that it is difficult to recognize him because of his suit (a) and It is not true that he is difficult to recognize in this suit. It is very easy to recognize (b). The presumption “he is difficult to recognize” is a semantic presumption of the utterance (and) the semantic presumption of the utterance is also a pragmatic presumption of the speaker, and the opposite statement is not true: “usually a person is similar to himself and is not difficult to recognize” - semantic and pragmatic presumptions do not coincide. And statement (b) does not have a semantic presumption and is simply an assertion, which also does not coincide with the pragmatic presumption of the statement. But, from the definition of presumptions, presumptions (both semantic and pragmatic) cannot be false, because in this case the sentence-statement is anomalous, illocutionary “suicidal”. And causal sentences themselves cannot be false, but quasi-causal ones allow this option: it depends on the pragmatic presumptions of the addresser and the addressee.
In modern linguistics, as is known, one of the central problems is the classification of meanings according to the degree of their abstraction, implicitness and other characteristics. The above semantic feature is associated with the syntax of meanings, which suggests the study of compatibility
explicit and implicit meanings. Causality as a semantic category is characterized by wide semantic variability associated with complex system means of formal expression: 1) hypotactic constructions (in Russian), polypredicative constructions in the Chuvash language (in the dependent predicative part, infinite forms of the verb can act as a predicate): a) polypredicative constructions of a synthetic type (the participle acts as a dependent predicate): Pudenche törlö shuhash palkhannaran Ivan samantlakha detse kairyo (T. Peterkki); b) constructions of the analytical-synthetic type (participial-postpositional constructions): Val dyrava layah pölne pirki, shkul ussine anlanna pirki haisen yalenche shkul udas shuhashpa dunchö (T. Peterkki); c) hypotactic constructions of the analytical type (conjunctive bonds because, mönschen tesen: Nauka enöpe ilsen, kunashkal turana silo paha mar, vylyakhshan sienlö, mönschen tesen apat huranne pasma pultarat (Emelyanov); 2) non-tactic structures with dependent propositional components (deverbative nouns or adverbs): Acha-pacha kartisyonche pechyok yapalashan havasla duyakhat (Uyar).
Literature
1. Arutyunova N.D. Proposition, fact, event (experience of conceptual analysis) // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. lit. and language 1981. T. 46, No. 6. P. 529-546.
2. Buranov D.B. Typological categories and comparative study of languages: abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 1979. 22 p.
3. Gordon E.Ya. Causative verbs in modern Russian: abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 1981.
4. Zvegintsev V.A. The sentence and its relation to language and speech. M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1976. 307 p.
5. Zolotova G.A. Essay on the functional syntax of the Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1973. 351 p.
6. Kolosova T.A. Cheremisina N.I. On the principles of classification of complex sentences // Questions of linguistics. 1984. No. 6.
7. Kornilov G.E., Kholodovich A.A., Khrakovsky V.S. Causatives and anticausatives in the Chuvash language // Typology of causative constructions. L.: Nauka, 1969.
8. Tarasova I.P. The meaning of sentence-statements and communication: abstract. dis. ... doc. Philol. Sci. M., 1992.
9. Shiryaev E.N. Relationships of logical conditioning in complex sentence// Grammar studies. M.: Nauka, 1991.
10. Shmeleva T.V. Semantic syntax: text of lectures. Krasnoyarsk, 1988.
11. Shuvalova S.A. Semantic relations in a complex sentence and ways of expressing them. M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, 1990.
12. Khlebtsova O.A. Lexico-semantic field of causative verbs: abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Kharkov, 1986.
REC NATALIA IVANOVNA - doctoral student of the Department of Comparative Philology and Intercultural Communication, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary ( [email protected]).
RETZ NATALIA IVANOVNA - doctoral candidate of Comparative Linguistics and Intercul-tural Communication Chair, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary.
GUBANOV ALEXEY RAFAILOVICH - doctor philological sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Comparative Philology and Intercultural Communication, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary ( [email protected]).
GUBaNoV ALEKSEY RAFAILOVICH - doctor of phylological sciences, professor, head of Comparative Linguistics and Intercultural Communication Chair, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary.
(lat. causalis - causal, causa - cause), or causality, a concept used in traditional philosophy to designate the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) determines the other (effect). In this context, K. was interpreted as one of the forms of the universal connection of phenomena, as an internal connection between what already exists and what is generated by it, what is just becoming. It was assumed that in this way communication differs from other forms of communication, which are characterized by the correlation of one phenomenon to another. Internal connection was considered as the essence of K., it was understood as an internal relationship inherent in things themselves. K. was supposed to be universal, because according to the natural scientific views of that time, there are no phenomena that do not have their own causes, just as there are no phenomena that do not have (do not give rise to) certain consequences. The connection between cause and effect was considered necessary: if there is a cause and the corresponding conditions are present, then an effect inevitably arises. Subsequently (especially in the 20th century), the principle of calculus underwent a radical rethinking. (See Anti-Oedipus, Determinism, Neo-determinism, "The Death of God".)
Definitions, meanings of words in other dictionaries:
Philosophical Dictionary
(lat. causalis - causal, causa - cause) or causality - a philosophical category to designate the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) determines the other (effect). K. can be interpreted as one of the forms of the universal connection of phenomena, taking into account that K...
The latest philosophical dictionary
1This article makes an attempt to conduct a review analysis of various methods and approaches in the research of linguists of Kazakh and foreign science devoted to causal relations. The analysis made it possible to identify three aspects of the problem: the study of causal relations from the standpoint of functional grammar, the study from a cognitive-pragmatic perspective, as well as from a communicative-pragmatic perspective. When studying the functional-semantic features of causal relations from the perspective of functional grammar, a field approach is used: causal relations are considered as a field of conditionality, as a functional-semantic field and a relational field of causation. In the cognitive-pragmatic aspect, causation is studied as a logical category, which is based on the epistemic form of thinking. In the communicative-pragmatic perspective, causal relationships at the level of speech acts are analyzed. The similarity of the main approaches to the study of the category of causation in foreign and domestic literature is clear evidence that causation is considered in world linguistics as a key concept in the categorization and conceptualization of the surrounding world.
speech act.
epistemic level
functional-semantic field
conditioning field
linguistic causation
causal relations
1. Alina G.M. Causal relations in the system of Russian and Kazakh languages: Author's abstract. diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Almaty, 1999. 29 p.
2. Arutyunova N.D. Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. M.: Nauka, 1988. 341 p.
3. Babalova L.L. Semantic varieties of causal and conditional sentences in modern Russian: dissertation. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 1975.
4. Bakulev A.V. FSP of causation in modern Russian language: diss. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.02.01. Taganrog, 2009. 189 p.
5. Bondarko A.V. The theory of functional grammar. Locativity, Beingness, Possessivity, Conditionality. SPb.: Publishing house St. Petersburg. Univ., 1996. 269 p.
6. Vlasova Yu.N. and others. Functional-semantic and word-formation fields in linguistics. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house Rost. state ped. Institute, 1998. P. 283.
7. Vsevolodova M.V. Fields, categories and concepts in the grammatical system of language // Questions of linguistics. 2009. No. 3. P.76-99.
8. Vsevolodova M.V., Yashchenko T.A. Cause-and-effect relationships in modern Russian language. 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. 208 p.
9. Grigoryan E.L. Causal meanings and syntactic structures // Questions of linguistics. 2009. No. 1. P.23-34.
10. Zhdanova V.V. Simple sentences with a noun phrase expressing cause-and-effect relationships in the world inanimate nature: diss... cand. Philol. Sci. M., 1998. 186 p.
11. Evtyukhin V. B. Grouping of conditioning fields: cause, condition, goal, consequence, concession. // Theory of functional grammar. Locativity. Beingness. Possessiveness. Conditioning. St. Petersburg : Publishing house St. Petersburg. University, 1996. P.143-145.
12. Kamynina L.I. Functional-semantic field of causality in modern English: Author's abstract. diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 1992. 16 p.
13. Kirpichnikova N.V. The meaning of the basis-conclusion and its syntactic expression by means of vocabulary // Bulletin of Moscow State University, Philology series. 1989. No. 3. P. 36-44.
14. Komarov A.P. On the linguistic status of causal connection. A.-Ata: Kaz.gos.ped.inst., 1970. 224 p.
15. Kotvitskaya E.S. A typical situation reflecting cause-and-effect relationships as a meaningful unit of language (and its speech implementations): dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 1990.
16. Kumisbaeva M.M. Causal hypotaxis in English and ways of conveying it in the Kazakh language: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Almaty, 1999. 123 p.
17. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors by which we live: trans. from English / ed. and with a preface. A.N. Baranova. 2nd edition. M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. 256 p.
18. Romanova V.M. On the question of ways of expressing cause-and-effect relationships in the Tatar language in the light of field theory // Questions of the structure of the Tatar language. 1986. P.75-79.
19. Smolich N. A. Structure and semantics of causal complex sentences with conjunctions of differentiated meanings in the aspect of textual dependence and conditionality: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Lipetsk, 2003. 193 p.
20. Tazhibaeva S.Zh. Ways of expressing causal relations in the Kazakh language: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 2005. 354 p.
21. Teremova R.M. Functional-grammatical typology of conditional constructions in the modern Russian language: Author's abstract. dis. ... Dr. Philol. Sci. L., 1988.
22. Toleup M.M. Kazіrgі kazakh tіlindegі sebep-saldardlyktyn functional aspects: dis. ...philol. Gylym. Almaty.2002.148 b.
23. Shiryaev E.I. The relation of logical conditionality: methods of expression and their distribution across spheres of language // Grammatical studies. Functional and stylistic aspect: Morphology. Word formation. Syntax. M.: Nauka, 1991. pp. 224-225.
24. Yarygina E.S. On the question of the peculiarities of inference-justification constructions // Russian language: historical destinies and modernity. M., 2001. P. 230.
25. Boetter W., Sitta H. Deutsche Grammatik III. Zusammengesetzter Satz und äquivalente Strukturen. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum, 1972. S. 97-123.
26. Breindl E., Walter M. Der Ausdruck von Kausalität im Deutschen. Eine korpusbasierte Studie zum Zusammenspiel von Konnektoren, Kontextmerkmalen und Diskursrelationen.Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. amades.2009. 200 S.
27. Buscha J., Freudenberg-Findeisen R., Forstreuter E. Grammatik in Feldern. Ein Lehr-und Übungsbuch für Fortgeschrittene. Leipzig: Verlag für Deutsch, 1998. S. 55-78.
28. FlamigW. Grammatik des Deutschen. Einführung in Struktur und Wirkungszusammmenhänge. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1991. S.46-50. S. 280-295.
29. Frohning D. Kausalmarker zwischen Pragmatik und Kognition. Korpusbasierte Analysen zur Variation im Deutschen. Tübingen:Niemeyer, 2007.
30. Girke W. Kausalität und Verstehen.//Girke, Wolfgang (Hg.): Aspekte der Kausalität im Slavischen. Mainzer Studien zum Problem der Kausalität. Munich. (Speciminaphilologiaeslavicae 122). 1999. S. 161-179.
31. Heidolph K., Flämig W., Motsch W. Grundzüge einer deutscher Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984.S. 322. S. 799.
33. Lang E. Studien zur Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung.Berlin(O): StudiaGrammatica, 14, 1977. S. 63-64.
34. Le groupeλ-l. Car, parceque, puisque. - Revue Romane 17 X, Universite´ de Kopenhague, 1975. P. 249-280.0: 267
35. Moeschler J. Causality, lexicon, and discourse meaning. - Rivistadi Linguistica, 2003. 15.2. P. 277-303.
36. Pander M., Sanders H. T. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use // Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 2001. P. 247-273.
37. Pasch R., Brauße U. Breindl E., Waßner U. H. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.
38. Redder A.Grammatiktheorie und sprachliches Handeln: “denn” und “da”. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1990.
39. Rudolph E. Wirkung und Folge in Konsekutitivsätzen in „Sprache: Formen und Strukturen" // Kohrt, Lenerz, Jurgen. Akten des 13. Linqist. Kolloquiums, Band 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1980. S. 315-325. S 183.
40. Schmidhauser B. Kausalität als linguistische Kategorie.Mittel und Möglichkeiten für Begründungen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1995. S.33.
41. Skaidra Girdeniene Die Leistung der Kausalstrukturen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung dersyntaktisch-semantischen und pragmatischen Perspektive // Studies about languages. Kalbustudijos.2004.No. 6.
42. Sommerfeld K.E., Starke G. Einführung in die Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig, 1988. S. 268-273.
43. Stojanova N. Zur Struktur und Funktionen der denn-Sätze // Beiträge zur Erforschung der deutschen Sprache. Hrsg. Von W. Fleisher, R. Grosse, G. Lerchner; 7. Band. Leipzig: VEB Bibliografisches Institut, 1987. S. 32-68.
44. Stukker N., Sanders T., Verhagen A. Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization // Journal of Pragmatics 40. 2008. P. 1296-1322.
45. Sweetser E. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge u.a., 1990.
46. Thim-Marbey Ch. Zur Syntax der kausalen Konjunktionen weil, da, und denn. //Sprachwissenschaft von R. Schützeichel. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1982. Bd. 7. S. 197-219.
47. Van Belle, W. Want, omdat en aangezien: eenargumentatieveanalyse. Leuvense Bijdragen 78, 1989.P. 435-556.
48. Zifonun G., Hoffmann L., Strecker B. et al. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3 Bde, 1997.
49. Zufferey S. Car, parceque, puisque revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives // Journal of Pragmatics 44. 2012. P. 138-153.
Introduction
The natural cause-and-effect relationships of phenomena of objective reality are reflected in language, therefore linguistic causation as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon attracts the attention of scientists and is studied in various aspects of modern linguistics. The main goal of this work is to give an analytical overview of the main directions in the study of causal relations in domestic and foreign linguistics and to show the relationship between different approaches to studying this phenomenon, which is a key concept in the conceptualization of the objective and subjective world and the result of cognitive activity human brain. The category of causality is a complex multilateral object that can be described in functional-communicative, cognitive-pragmatic and communicative-pragmatic aspects.
Causality from the perspective of functional grammar
From the standpoint of functional grammar, causation is considered as a broad field of conditionality, including a number of semantic varieties. Causal relations in the broad sense of the word include causal, target, consequential, and concessional. The unification of the field of conditioning within one group has both linguistic and non-linguistic grounds. From an extralinguistic point of view, the linguistic categories of cause, effect, conditions, goals and concessions are considered as a reflection of deterministic phenomena of reality, their influence on each other, and an orderly relationship to each other. From a linguistic point of view, the central place in the grouping under consideration belongs to the field of reason. The semantic unity of conditioning relations is manifested in correlation through mutual motivation, the intersection of field structures, in the absence of clear boundaries: the same nominative basis of conditioning relations can be presented in the form of a cause-and-effect, conditional and target structure ,, ,;; ; ;). The creation of fields is based on the provision of systematic language: A.V. Bondarko believes that the systematic nature of a language can be detected on the basis of the principle of functional interaction of multi-level units. United by the commonality of the function they perform, they form a known aggregate that has the features of a systemic organization.
The theory of field structuring finds its application in the concept of the Kazakh scientist A.P. Komarov, who considers the general meaning of causation (“subject-logical relation”) as the semantic core of a set of means of expression, the linguistic status of which is defined as the relational field of causation (RFC). RPC is understood as a semantic space formed by a set of classes of structures belonging to different levels of language and united by the commonality of the causality relationship they express. A.P. Komarov identifies a center and two peripheral segments in the PKK. “At the center” of the PKK are structures that express the causal relationship in its purest form, not aggravated by any other shades. On the periphery, as one moves away from the center, structures are located depending on the degree of decrease in the purity of causal meaning, namely, the linguistic structures of condition, goal, concession and consequence. V.M. Romanov, developing the ideas of A.P. Komarov, based on the material of the Tatar language, represents the field of causality in the form of a central segment, a core and two peripheral segments. In the center of the field there is a core, which is formed from means that are systematically used and unambiguously express the meaning of causality.
In the light of the field approach, it is necessary to note the studies of functional-semantic fields of causality. So, for example, Kamynina L.E. presents the FSP of causality on the material of the English language, establishes linguistic units and structures related to the core, perinuclear and peripheral space of the field. The functional-semantic field of causality was also studied using materials from the German and Russian languages. In the FSP of causality Vsevolodov M.V. includes nominal, adverbial and sentence functional-semantic categories of causality. Bakulev A.V. however, he singles out two microfields in the FSP of causation: the microfield of cause and the microfield of effect and considers the FSP of causation as an ontological-ontological field, on the one hand, and, on the other, as a sontological-epistemological stratification, within which “the constituents of microfields differ not in objective content, but in the form of reflection thoughts" .
There are also works devoted to a narrow consideration of the category of causality as a single whole, divided into two subcategories: the category of cause and the category of effect. These semantic-syntactic relations are proposed to be considered separately, since the language has special means of expressing them. Cause and effect represent two sides of the causal process: any phenomenon can be described both in terms of cause and in terms of effect.
An attempt to compare the FSP of relational causality in the system of Russian and Kazakh languages is made by G.M. Alina, in the term causation the author includes the concept of causation and considers verbs as a lexical form of expressing causation. Of particular note is the study of the functional aspects of cause-and-effect relationships based on the Kazakh language;;.
The semantic meaning of causation is identified with the explanation of the causal connection between events and facts, as well as with ethical relations. Accordingly, the following areas of application of causal relations are distinguished: causal relations in nature, human behavior, ethical causal relations, causal relations in administrative and social spheres and logical causal relation; . Identification of the structural-semantic paradigm, semantic types of causal relations is the subject of many research work. The basic principles of the derivation of semantic types are based on the doctrine of the duality of the definition of causation, namely the distinction between cause-and-effect and fundamental-effect relations. These types of relations are called semantic models of causal relations, direct and indirect causal relations, proper-causal and non-proper-causal; ; . Direct (or intrinsically causal) include relationships of causal dependence between phenomena of objective reality; indirect or non-proprietary causal relations are relations between reason and inferential knowledge.
Thus, the study of functional-semantic features of causal relations from the standpoint of functional grammar involves: identifying the heterogeneity of causal meanings from the point of view of semantics, classifying semantic models of causal relations and identifying their grammatical manifestations.
Causality in the cognitive-pragmatic aspect
The cognitive-pragmatic aspect of the study of causal relations acquires its significance in the context of the anthropocentric paradigm. Causality is considered not only as a cause-and-effect relationship between objects and phenomena of reality, but also as a connection between thoughts in a conclusion, reflection on a particular situation, its use to substantiate a thought, subjective opinion, statement. In foreign linguistics, causation is studied as a mental, logical-semantic category, which is based on the epistemic form of thinking;; . The cognitive process of reflecting causal relationships, according to scientists, manifests itself in human mental activity in the form of inference, justification, reasoning, and explanation of objectively existing cause-and-effect relationships. Justifying an event that is based on a cause-and-effect relationship, the speaker analyzes the situation at the epistemic level: explains, evaluates or justifies it at the modus level (Modusdicenti), i.e. The speaker's reasoning is realized with the help of complex logical mental operations, through mental activity in the form of a reductive conclusion. The basis and consequence are the primary and subsequent sides of a logical relationship. Epistemic connections are called “logical patterns” (“logischeGesetzmässigkeiten”), logical category (logischeKategorie), logical connection; .
Causal relations at the epistemic level are also called symptomatic relations, or diagnosis to substantiate a logical conclusion, a statement about a particular phenomenon by making assumptions. Life experience and background knowledge allows the subject to consider the extralinguistic sign as a symptom or diagnosis for logical inference. The first part of the sentence, in their opinion, expresses a hypothesis, and the second - a symptom or diagnosis that confirms this hypothesis. For example: Ich nehme an (vermute, sehe, weiss, denke, bin sicher) er arbeitet wohl noch, denn es ist Licht im Zimmer"(I I guess (I see, I know, I think, I’m sure) he’s still working, because the light in his room is on.).
In this regard, it is necessary to note the opinion of the English scientist J. Lakoff: “causality is a basic category of human thinking. This concept is one of the concepts most often used by humans for the mental organization of the material world and cultural realities."
Almost the same attitude is represented by the definition of causality as a relation of a subject-logical nature in Kazakh and Russian literature. A cause-and-effect relationship is called an objective connection, a fundamental-effect relationship is a logical connection between two thoughts: logical justification and logical consequence, conclusion, conclusion;; ; ; . A proposition of causal justification is a logical inference; , when, in addition to the generating and generated events, we should talk about a logical proposition: the conclusion of the speaker about their connection.
E.S. Yarygina clearly distinguishes between the logical constructions of inference and justification: “Justification is an investigative component of a causative construction, but the cause of a judgment. Inference is an objective reason, but an investigative component in the structure of inference.” Thus, in the phrase At night there was severe frost, the water in the puddles froze .the component of the conclusion is the reason - there was severe frost at night; component of the justification - the water in the puddles froze. The focus is on the speaker, who is outside the situation and from whose position this or that observed phenomenon is presented. The subject restores reality in his consciousness in the form of judgments and conclusions.
According to N.D. Arutyunova, it is “a judgment that structures reality so that it can be established whether it is true or false.” That is, it is not the fact that sets the judgment, but the judgment that sets the fact. “Reality exists independently of man, but fact does not. A person isolates a fragment of reality, and in it a certain aspect, conceptualizes it, structures it according to the model of judgment (i.e., introduces the value of truth), verifies it, and then only receives the fact.” Therefore, studies that present the connection between causal relations and linguistic consciousness are of particular interest. Thus, the linguistic category of causation is interpreted by foreign linguists as objectively existing cause-and-effect relationships, reflected through cognitive activity in the minds of people, and also as a category that gives us an interesting opportunity to imagine the work of consciousness. In the works of Russian scientists, causation is reflected in linguistic consciousness as a typical situation formed by a certain minimum set of components - characters, their actions, objects, states, relationships and properties; ; .
In this regard, it is necessary to note studies devoted to the cognitive perception of causal and non-causal relations in discourse. For example, Sanders’ work examines conjunctions, which are an indicator of cognitive relationships, verbalize the cognitive mechanisms of subjective reflection of objective connections in linguistic consciousness and reflect the mental activity of the subject and the logic of his reasoning.
In E. Lang's theory of operational meaning, conjunctions are considered as metasigns that operate with other signs. The peculiarity of conjunctions as elements of the causal field is their indication of a causal connection, regardless of the specific content of the connected components, which indicates their cognitive and communicative-pragmatic significance.
For example: Die Welt ist rund, weil ich einen roten Pullover trage.(The world is round, because I wear a red half-shirt.)B weil A (B because A).
Conjunctions create relationships of agreement in discourse and contribute to the understanding of discourse. Unions are the object of research not only as a means of expressing epistemic causal connection, but are also the focus of research in the communicative-pragmatic aspect, when the scope of the objective cause expands; the actually significant, pragmatic meaning of the reason goes beyond the limits of explicitly given denotations.
The study of causal relations in the cognitive-pragmatic aspect is based on the anthropocentric principle of causal relations, when the focus is on the subject, his analytical thinking and vision of objective reality. The cognitive-pragmatic aspect of the study of causal relationships is directly related to the communicative-pragmatic approach , when the mental activity of the human brain finds its expression in the speech activity of a person.
Causality in communicativepragmatic aspect
Communicativepragmatic approach is a particularly important area in the study of causal relations. Causal relations are differentiated on the basis of the specific communicative-pragmatic meaning they reflect; the logical-semantic category of causality serves as a source of actualization and functioning of linguistic units in speech; ; ; ; ; ; . In a number of studies, fundamental-effect relations are considered in the pragmatic aspect as speech action-justification. Justification as a speech act takes place if the speaker creates a causal connection between his speech act and another state of affairs, and we are talking about an intentional state of affairs. Researchers note the explicative function of justification; the function of explanation is interpreted as the relationship between events and actions, between relationships and actions, characteristic of both human behavior in general and for a specific subject in a certain situation; ; ; ; .
Sentences of causal justification are analyzed in the Kazakh and Russian languages as a dictum-modus relation, indicating the obligatory position of the speaker in these constructions;; ; . Proposals of causal justification are based on the subjective opinion of the speaker; the event itself is a mentally experienced event, the existence of which is impossible regardless of human actions. It is quite natural for researchers to call the functioning of modes with the semantics of operation, assumption, knowledge, as well as with the semantics of sanction and emotional assessment; . Modal words are called illocutionary indicators because they clarify the nature of the illocution and the communicative function of the utterance and connect the utterance with the communicative context, modify the speech act from the point of view of the speaker, contribute to the process of perception of the listener (recipient), and contribute to the establishment of communicative-pragmatic agreement between communication partners.
The basis of linguistic studies of causal relations at the speech act level is the speech act theory Legroupe λ-l, according to which, in addition to causal relations at the level of propositions, there is also a causal connection between speech acts p and q, where p is an act of statement or question; and q serves as an act of justification, justification. Following this teaching, the theory of E. Sweetser appears in the linguistic literature - the theory of three semantic levels of causal relations, the pragmatic context of which is functionally and semantically different: the level of propositions (contentdomain), the level of the epistemic level (epistemicdomain) and the speech act level (speechaktdomain). At the speech act level, an internal causal connection is carried out between directive illocutions in the form of demands, requests, recommendations, advice or orders and the basis that prompted these speech acts: Study the material yourself! Because I don't have time to explain. Possible paraphrase: I recommend you: Read the material yourself! and the basis for my recommendation is the fact that I have no time to explain.
The theory of causal relations at the level of speech acts also finds its application in the study of functional features causal unions. Causal conjunctions and their semantic-functional features at three levels were the focus of the work of Dutch scientists; . They are also considered in the works of German scientists; ; ; ; causal conjunctions are decisive in establishing the epistemic and speech act causal connection of written and oral discourse in French; . The functions of causal conjunctions as a modal commentator indicate the subjectivity of causal relations at the epistemic and speech act levels. In both types of relationships, the speaker is directly involved as a subject of logical inference or as a subject-author of a speech act.
Thus, causality, due to its versatility, determines the variety of approaches in its study; the analyzed approaches and methods for studying causal relations in domestic and foreign linguistics indicate the presence of similarities rather than differences in their interpretation. Causality is considered as a functional-semantic category, a mental and logical category; a category actualized in speech, reflecting the subject’s attitude to the surrounding reality. The similarity of the main approaches to the study of the category of causality in foreign and domestic literature is clear evidence general patterns reflection of objective reality in human consciousness, the unity of the laws of human cognition. We dare to say that in general, in world linguistics, causation is the key concept of categorization and conceptualization of the surrounding world, the result of the cognitive activity of the human brain.
Reviewers:
Agmanova A.E., Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the Eurasian National University. L.N. Gumilyov, Astana.
Nurtazina M.B., Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the Eurasian National University. L.N. Gumilyov, Astana.
Bibliographic link
Dalbergenova L.E., Zharkynbekova Sh.K. STUDIES OF CAUSAL RELATIONS IN MODERN LINGUISTICS // Contemporary issues science and education. – 2013. – No. 6.;URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=10878 (access date: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"
Causality
(Kausalitat; from Latin causa - “reason”) - causality, effectiveness, natural connection between cause and action. As a principle (causal principle, or law), causality expresses the following: every event has a cause (caused, arises as a result of influence) and at the same time is the cause of another event, or vice versa: nothing happens without a cause. Cause and effect form a chain extending from the past (see Proton kinuri), penetrating the present and disappearing into the future (causal connection; cf. Expedient). On closer examination, a cause is divided into at least the (external) circumstances under which something happens, the (internal) conditions due to which it occurs, and the call to action that serves as the immediate cause. Example: If the gunpowder is dry (circumstance) and correctly composed (condition), then due to the impact (causing action) it ignites (action).
The concept of causation is formed as a generalization of the experience that something, an “action,” takes place if and only if something else, a “cause,” has taken place or is happening at that time. At the same time, it is easy to fall into error, mistaking “post hoc,” i.e., a temporary “after this,” for “propter hoc,” i.e., a causal “therefore.” In the history of philosophy, the principle of causality was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and as a strictly causal relationship of events - by the Stoics and Epicurus. In the Middle Ages, the question of exact causality in nature, one might say, was completely consigned to oblivion, and only in the natural sciences of modern times (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, etc.) the principle of causality of nature, which had not been broken through by any supernatural intervention, again began to be intensively studied. This naturally scientifically explainable objective concept of causation was opposed by the subjectivist understanding of causation, represented primarily by English empiricists.
For example, according to Hume, belief in causality is based on association, expectation and habit. Kant considered the universal principle of causality to be a priori, but having significance only in the sphere of experience. Schopenhauer distinguishes three forms of causality: cause in the proper sense (for the inorganic world), irritation (in organic-vegetative life) and motive (in the actions of all conscious beings). Mill, Spencer and others tried to understand and explain causation based on experience alone, using induction. Positivism (Comte, Avenarius, Mach, etc.) replaces the concept of causality with the concept of functional dependence, the concept of cause with “condition” (see Conditionism).
In the latest ontology, causation refers to categories. It is one of the possibilities of definition or forms of definition of what exists (see The doctrine of layers). Modern physicists, due to the lack of possibility of repeated empirical verification, leave open the question of the unlimited applicability of the principle of causality in the microworld; it is used as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule; see Uncertainty Relationship; Base.
from lat. causa - cause) - causality, effectiveness, natural connection between cause and action. As a principle (causal principle or law), causality is understood as follows: every phenomenon has a cause (caused, is an action) and at the same time is the cause of another phenomenon; or - nothing appears without a reason. Cause and effect form a chain from the past through the present to the future (causal connection). The principle of causality in philosophy was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and the causal relationship was first clearly formulated by the Stoics and Epicurus. In modern physics (20th century), the unlimited applicability of the principle of causality in the microworld is denied; it is used as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule. Causal - causal, corresponding to the causal law.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
CAUSALITY
from lat. causa cause) - causality, effectiveness, natural connection between cause and action. As a principle (causal principle, or law), causality expresses the following: every phenomenon has a cause (caused, is an action) and at the same time is the cause of another phenomenon; or, conversely, nothing appears without a reason. Cause and effect form a chain coming from the past (see Proton kinun), penetrating the present and disappearing into the future (causal connection; see Finitude). On closer examination, the cause is divided into the (external) circumstances under which something happens, the (internal) conditions due to which it occurs, and the excitement that serves as the immediate cause. If the gunpowder is dry (circumstance) and correctly composed (condition), then due to the impact (excitement) it ignites (action). The concept of causation is a generalization of the experience that something, an “action,” takes place if and only if something else, a “cause,” took place or is taking place at that time. At the same time, it is easy to fall into error by accepting “post hoc”, i.e. temporary "after this", for "propter hoc", i.e. causal "therefore". Natural phenomena are called causally explainable, and the connections between them are called corresponding to the principle of causality, since in relation to this principle in general we are talking primarily not about a mental, but about an objective, material connection, which cannot contradict the results of research natural sciences. In the history of philosophy, the principle of causality was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and as a strictly causal relationship of phenomena - by the Stoics and Epicurus. In the Middle Ages, the question of causality in nature did not develop at all. And only in new science about nature (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, etc.), the principle of consistent causality of nature, which does not explain it by supernatural intervention, again began to be intensively studied. This naturally scientifically explainable objective concept of causation was opposed by the subjective understanding of causation, defended primarily by the English empiricists. For example, according to Hume, belief in causality is based on association, expectation and habit. Kant considered the universal principle of causality to be a priori, but having significance only in the sphere of experience. Schopenhauer distinguishes three forms of causality: cause in the proper sense (for the inorganic world), irritation (in organic-vegetative life) and motive (in the actions of all animate beings). Mill, Spencer and others tried to understand and explain causation on the basis of experience alone, using induction. Positivism (Comte, Avenarius, Mach, etc.) replaces the concept of causality with the concept of functional dependence, the concept of cause with “condition” (see Conditionism). In the spirit of the latest ontology, causation refers to categories. It is one of the categories of possibilities for determining what exists (see The doctrine of layers). Modern physicists deny the unlimited applicability of the principle of causality in the microworld; it is used as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule. See Uncertainty Relationship, Basis. Causal (from Latin) causal, corresponding to the causal law.