.png)
UDC 81`42
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6-21.068
Shirshikov Vladislav B.,
Candidate of Philology,
Associate Professor of the Methodology of Law and
Legal Communication Department
Law Institute
Russian University of Transport
e-mail: vbshirshikov@yandex.ru
Kobzeva Olga V.,
Candidate of Philology,
Associate Professor of the Methodology of Law and
Legal Communication Department
Law Institute
Russian University of Transport
e-mail: fleurka2008@yandex.ru
Skuybedina Olga N.,
Candidate of Philosophy,
Associate Professor of the Methodology of Law and
Legal Communication Department
Law Institute
Russian University of Transport
e-mail: skujbedina@mail.ru
This article analyses the verbalization of kinemas: the choice of ways and means of their verbal representation in literary texts and dictionaries. Russian -Russian and French-language literature of the 19th and 20th centuries of different genres (dramatic, epic (novels, novellas, short stories, detective stories, plays), as well as Russian-French explanatory dictionaries) were used as the material for the study. The authors used the following contexts: descriptions of verbal representations of kinemas, extracted from modern and classical Russian and French-language literature of the XIX–XX centuries. The analyzed material in lexicography allows us to draw the following conclusions: the frequency of verbalization of the kineme in the Russian language with the reference word "eyes"(250; 45%); in the French language, the most frequent are kinemas with the reference word "hand" (154; 34,2%). The study of modern and classical fiction gives grounds to state that in French texts the frequency of verbalization of kinemas containing a description of gestures is 40%, in Russian texts 30,7%. The most representative are complex RRCS in Russian fiction — 42,4%, and in French texts there is a clear predominance of verbalization of kinemas containing a description of facial expression — 44,2%. It should be noted that the national speech behavior of an individual is determined not only and not so much by his psychological mood and communication conditions, but by his belonging to a certain linguistic and cultural community, which has its own cultural space, cultural interior of the situation, and all this is consistently reflected in the literary text.
Keywords: verbal representation of the kineme, kinesics, continuous sampling method, representativeness of the sample, self-indication, implicitness and explicitness of the gesture, facial expression.
References
1. Gelgardt P.P. Rassuzhdeniia o dialogakh i monologakh (k obshchei teorii vyskazyvaniia): sb. dokladov i soobshchenii Lingvisticheskogo obshchestva. Kalinin: KGU, 1971. Vyp. 1, t. II. S. 28–253.
2. Boeva E.D. Neverbal’nye sredstva obshcheniia kak elementy natsional’noi kul’tury. Moscow: Nauka, 2001. S. 45–169.
3. Blinova A.V. Strukturno-semanticheskii analiz neverbal’nykh
sredstv kommunikatsii i ikh otrazhenii v iazyke i rechi: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. Moscow, 1994.
4. Paducheva E.N. Pragmaticheskie aspekty sviaznosti dialoga // Izv. AN SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazyka. 1982. T. 41, No. 4. S. 24–36.
5. Dementev A.V. Semantiko-funktsional’nye aspekty kinematicheskikh rechenii v sovremennom angliiskom iazyke: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. Moscow, 1985.
6. Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. Filologicheskii podkhod k
somaticheskomu iazyku // Iazyk i rech’ kak ob”ekty kompleksnogo lingvisticheskogo issledovaniia. Kalinin: KGU, 1981. S. 98.
7. Poyatos F. Interactive functions and Limitations of verbal and non-verbal behaviors in natural conversationtion // Semiotica. 1980. Vol. 30, No. 3. P. 145–170.
8. Nakashidze N.V. Verbal’naia interpretatsiia paralingvisticheskikh sredstv v tekste // Lingvistika teksta: sb. trudov. Moscow: MGPIIIa, 1979. Vyp. 141. S. 61–72.
9. Piotrovsky R.G., Bektaev K.B., Piotrovskaya A.A. Matematicheskaia lingvistika. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1977. 383 s.
10. Sternin I.A., Prokhorov A.S. Kommunikativnoe povedenie v strukture natsional’noi kul’tury // Etnokul’turnaia spetsifika iazykovogo soznaniia. Moscow: Nauka, 2002. 87 s.