GESTURES AND PRAGMATIC CHARACTERISTICS OF STATEMENTS * E.A. Grishina (address) 1. Introduction Previous studies have shown that the pragmatic characteristics of an utterance are quite regularly reflected in gestures. Thus, in the works of [Grishina 2012a, 2012c, 2013a] we studied, among other things, the connection between pointing gestures with the hand and head and the illocutionary force of an utterance; in the work of [Grishina 2012b] such a connection was revealed for autodeixis (auto-pointing to spoken words). shouting). In [Grishina 2011] it was shown that the illocution performed by the speaker affects his ocular behavior at the boundary of lines in dialogue. The report found imperative characteristics in a number of pointing gestures based on American material. In this article we would like to summarize our previous research on this issue, as well as provide some new data that, to our knowledge, has not been published previously. The study was conducted on the material of the Multimedia Russian Corpus, the database consists of more than 3 thousand gestures aligned with verbal forms in the statement1. It should be specially emphasized that in different subsystems of the Russian gestural system, the pragmatic characteristics of the utterance are reflected with varying degrees of detail. So, for example, the system of head deixis, ocular behavior, and autodeixis do not distinguish between the imperative and the question, but oppose the statement with the imperative and the question together, as statements that provoke the listener to an immediate reaction. In connection with * The study was supported by the program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Corpus Linguistics”, as well as the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant No. 10-06-00151. 1 “Alignment” implies the synchronicity of the stress phase of the gesture and the pronunciation of the verb word form; sometimes, however, the stress phase of a gesture shifts from the verb to adjacent word forms - to verb noun phrases or to emphatically marked word forms.. 2 E.A. Grishin, henceforth we will consider only hand gestures, and not directed at the speaker (autodeixis), since it is in this gestural subsystem that the most subtle gestural differentiation of the pragmatic aspects of the utterance is carried out. 2. Deep and superficial illocutions 2.1. Deep illocutions From a gestural point of view, it is reasonable to distinguish between two types of illocutionary force of utterances. Deep illocution is associated with the action that the speaker carries out with his utterance. Here, for further presentation, it is important to divide the statement into three types: imperatives, questions and statements (we leave performatives aside, since they are mainly accompanied by autodeixis). Imperatives are directed at the addressee and express the speaker’s demand to carry out some action (physical, mental or verbal). Questions also contain an imperative component - a request to the addressee to perform a verbal action (to provide the speaker with information). Statements in the standard case do not contain an imperative component. In addition, questions, unlike standard imperatives and statements, contain a component of uncertainty - the speaker does not have all the information on a certain topic, which prompts him to ask questions. And finally, affirmations. They have negative characteristics both in relation to the hard (vs. imperative) and soft (vs. question) imperative components, and in relation to the element of uncertainty (vs. question). However, statements also have a positive characteristic, namely, a high degree of assertiveness. We will distinguish between situational presuppositions (the imperative Put the book on the table! assumes that the book is not on the table, that the speaker considers the listener capable of putting the book on the table, and in addition, a number of existence presuppositions are assumed - there is a table, a listener and a book), linguistic presuppositions (the question Why did you put the book on the table? has a number of situational presuppositions similar to imperative presuppositions, but also a linguistic presupposition - 'you put the book on the table' - which and serves as the basis for this particular question) and assertion (the statement He put the book on the table contains not only presuppositions, but also the actual statement of fact - the assertive zone, which, unlike presuppositions, can be subject to negation - He did not put book on the table). For gesturing, as will be shown below, it is important to distinguish the degree of assertiveness. If we assume that situational presuppositions have the lowest degree, linguistic presuppositions have the highest degree, and assertions have the highest degree, then deep illocutions will be located on the assertiveness scale as follows: Fig. 1 Thus, statements, in contrast to imperatives and questions, in the standard case have the maximum degree of assertiveness, and questions are superior to imperatives in this parameter. The above regarding deep illocutions can be summarized in Table. 1. Deep illocutions Imperative Question Statement Pragmatic components Hard imperative component + – – Soft imperative component – ​​+ – Uncertainty – + – Assertiveness low average complete Table 1 2. 2. Superficial illocutions Superficial illocutions do not affect the basic foundations of the statement, i.e. do not depend on what action the speaker performs with the help of a given utterance: surface illocutions are layered onto the utterance on top of deep illocutions. So, for example, the superficial illocution of an exclamation can be superimposed on both the imperative and the question and statement, adding an element of evaluativeness to the latter. Analysis of the material showed that the gestural system has a standard set of means for reflecting both deep and 4 E.A. Grishin of superficial illocutions. Note that surface illocutions in the linguistic system itself, and not in the gestural system, are considered not as an independent type of utterance, but only as individual components of a phrase (for example, interjections that attract the speaker’s attention, or special intonation contours for exclamation, or the volume level statements). Likewise, in the gestural domain, there are standard modes of expression for these pragmatic components that are easily combined with the expression of deep illocutions. To conclude this section, we note that the illocutionary force of an utterance at the gestural level can be expressed in two ways: 1) the configuration of the palm 2) the direction of movement of the hand/arms/head. Both methods are used to express deep illocutions, but only the direction of movement of the gesturing organ is used to express superficial ones. 3. Deep illocutions in gestures2 3.1. Deep illocutions and palm configuration 3.1.1. Hard imperative component When conveying a hard imperative component, the configuration of the palm metaphorically reflects two ideas: 1) control of the speaker over the listener, 2) direction of the listener along a certain distance (the semantic component 'go there' through metaphorical generalization is transformed in this case into the component ' do this'). Both of these ideas are conveyed by two means: pointing with the finger (index or thumb) and palm down. 2 This section, in the part that uses data from previous studies, is of a summary nature. The author refers for details and justification to the works cited above. Only those data that are presented for the first time will be presented in detail. Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of the utterance 5 The index finger: a) conveys the idea of ​​fixing the listener, attaching, pressing him to a certain point; b) conveys the idea of ​​the distance between the speaker and the object of indication, as if located at the tip of the index finger; fixing the listener's attention with the index finger is a metaphor for the speaker's control over the listener, and the distance conveys the idea of ​​'go there' = 'do this'. Thumb: due to its special, orthogonal location relative to the palm and other fingers, the thumb takes the listener outside the communicative space (see for more details [Grishina 2012c]), and thereby metaphorically conveys the idea of ​​remoteness and distance, and therefore , and the idea of ​​'do it this way'. Palm down: conveys the idea of ​​fixing the listener by “laying a hand” on him, pressing down, depriving him of the ability to move (control); conveys the idea of ​​the territory located under the palm, and therefore the idea of ​​distance (= ‘do this’). 3.1.2. Soft imperative component The soft imperative component as part of a question (a request to give information) is transmitted with an open palm up (see more about this, [Grishina 2012a]): this configuration of the palm seems to address the listener with a request to “put” the answer in speaker's hand. That is why the most typical question for a question is an open palm, oriented upward. 3.1.3. Assertiveness We see that statements regarding the configuration of the palm mostly have negative characteristics and can be considered as an unmarked statement from a gestural point of view. However, a more careful analysis of the material showed that gestures still have the ability in a number of cases to mark statements. To do this, a means such as opposing gestures with one or both hands is used. Table 2 demonstrates how the choice of the number of hands for gestures is related to deep illocution3. 3 Bold indicates numbers that differ from the expected average number in a given cell to a greater extent, italics - to a lesser hundred. 6 E.A. Grishina Number of hands Two hands One hand Type of illocution question 49 178 imperative 96 (χ2=12.1) 558 (χ2=3.2) statement 501 (χ2=3.32) 1708 2 –5 χ =19.6; p=5.53; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 2 It can be seen that as we move from an imperative to a statement, the probability of using two hands for gesticulation increases: for an imperative, two-handed gesticulation is not typical (and, on the contrary, one-handed gesticulation is very typical), for a question the choice between two-handed and one-handed gestures is equally probable, and the statement is characterized by the use of two hands. This distribution is very similar to the increase in the level of assertiveness of the statement, which we already wrote about above (see Fig. 1 and Table 1). Our database provides additional evidence that assertiveness in Russian gestures is related to the number of hands involved in the gesture. Among the hand configurations, narrative configurations can be distinguished: they are used by the speaker in cases where some action is depicted using “manual” pantomime. One of these configurations is the so-called. holding hand: a cup-shaped palm with slightly outstretched and tense fingers, supposedly holding some imaginary object (see Fig. 2). Rice. 2 This configuration of the hand is characteristic of verbs that in one form or another include the semantic component ‘hold’ (take, throw, carry, hold, load, give, move, dip, put, grab, etc.). ron, data that is not significantly different from the expected average is left without registration; values ​​of χ2 for a given cell are given in parentheses. Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of utterances 7 Another frequently encountered narrative configuration is the conveying of the idea of ​​someone’s movement by fingering, when the fingers represent a person’s legs (in a more general sense, any movement in general, not necessarily on foot). The same movement conveys the idea of ​​a sequence of any small actions, including those not related to movement (walking, running, carrying, tweeting, moving, leaving, etc.). Using fingers, the idea of ​​uncertainty is also metaphorically conveyed (to go somewhere, do something there, think about a decision, etc.). And finally, there are a large number of cases when the speaker uses his hands to depict the actions that he would perform with some imaginary object, as if this object were actually in the speaker’s hands - the so-called iconic hand gestures (launch smth. up [the speaker seems to throw something up], move the bushes [the speaker makes a movement with both hands from the communication zone in different directions], pull out the hair [this action is imitated], etc.) . In table 3 you can see how two-handed and one-handed configurations are distributed between the narrative hand configurations listed above and the remaining configurations. Number of hands Two hands One hand Palm configuration type narrative 79 (χ2=80.15) 71(χ2=20.02) others 544 (χ2=4.05) 2423 2 –24 χ =105.23; p=1.09; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 3 As we can see, the use of two hands is typical for the narrative configuration and the use of one is not typical; for other configurations, on the contrary, the use of two hands is not typical. Thus, from these data we can conclude that assertion is transmitted in the Russian gestural system using two-handed gesticulation. This is natural: gesturing with two hands creates a three-dimensional scene in which it is convenient to arrange a sequence of events using gestures and thereby embody a narrative that is directly related to a high degree of assertiveness of statements. 8 E.A. Grishina 3.2. Deep illocutions and direction of movement 3.2.1. Hard imperative component In table. 4 we present data concerning the distribution of directions of movement between deep illocutions. The methodology that we used to analyze the material is described in detail in [Grishina 2013b], so here we will present it briefly. Each gesture is carried out in three dimensions; accordingly, each gesture can be decomposed into vectors in accordance with Cartesian coordinates, at the reference point of which the speaker is placed (see Fig. 3). Rice. 3. Gesticulation in Fig. 4. Curved arc in Cartesian coordinates As a result, each gesture is assigned from one to three parameters (for example, right - up, forward - top to bottom - left, etc.). This gives us the opportunity to statistically process the database according to directions and determine which directions are characteristic of a particular linguistic phenomenon. Note that in addition to one-vector gestures, we also identified two-vector ones, the most significant of which in relation to illocutions, as our material shows, was a curved arc, combining sequential movement of the hand/arms from bottom to top and top to bottom (see Fig. 4 ). Let us especially draw attention to the fact that the calculations took into account only data on cognitive (object-free) gestures: cognitive gestures are gestures whose direction is not related to the location of certain objects in the real world (for more details, see [Grishina 2013a , 2013c]). Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of the utterance 9 Direction Forward To the sides Arc Top Bottom (left down up Type of illocution or nation right) question 28 49 48 76 58 (χ2=3.18) (χ2=4.21) (χ2=3 ,37) imperative 23 181 51 155 114 2 2 2 (χ =7.57) (χ =17.53) (χ =7.45) statement 717 837 730 238 433 (χ2=1.34) χ2=50, 56; p=3.18–8; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 4 In Table. 4, attention is drawn to the fact that forward directions (along the communicative axis) and sideways directions (right/left) along the cognitive axis are not used to contrast deep illocutions, which is natural if we remember that, according to According to our data given in [Grishina 2013c], the communicative direction (forward and behind the back) is assigned in Russian gestures to temporal meanings (contrasting current/irrelevant times), and the cognitive direction (to the right/left) is behind the opposition of fact and opinion, as well as the opposition of one’s own, good, close – and someone else’s, bad, distant, i.e. for an assessment. Thus, we see that the display of illocutions gravitates toward the vertical axis, as does the display of many other linguistic parameters, and therefore the vertical axis can be considered the linguistic axis. As for the specifically hard imperative component, as can be seen from Table. 4, it is strictly assigned to the direction of movement of the hand along the vertical axis from top to bottom (this direction is not typical for either the question or the statement), and at the same time the rigid imperative component is not strictly shown the direction from bottom to top. How can this data be interpreted? We believe that top-down movement in the imperative sense can convey two ideas. On the one hand, the speaker, as it were, puts his hand on the listener and thereby fixes his location, depriving him of freedom of movement, i.e. This is the same concept of control that we already discussed in the previous section. However, this is not the only possibility. J. Calbris in the work of inter- 10 E.A. Grishina interpreted upward gestural movement as a metaphor for growth and development. And indeed, this is confirmed by our data, which cannot be presented here. But in this case, movement in the opposite direction, from top to bottom, can convey a metaphor for suppression of growth, destruction. It is clear that the idea of ​​suppression is closely related to the meaning of a rigid imperative illocution. In order to confirm the presence of these two possibilities, we present in Table. 5 data on which palm configuration is preferably used by the speaker when he addresses the vertical axis to convey a gestural imperative. Direction Not from top to bottom From top to bottom Palm configuration palm not down 127 (χ2=10.5) 140 (χ2=5.83) palm down 23 (χ2=12.36) 109 (χ2=6.87) 2 fist 5 (χ =4.5) 30 (χ2=2.5) 2 –10 χ =42.57; p=5.71; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 5 It can be seen that for any movement not from top to bottom that accompanies the imperative (arc and direction from bottom to top), the orientation of the palm is not down (vertical palm and palm up). Conversely, the imperative top-down movement is characterized by a palm-down orientation (which metaphorically conveys the idea of ​​the speaker's control over the listener) or a clenched palm, which metaphorically conveys the idea of ​​suppression, destruction. 3.2.2. Uncertainty component From table. 4 you can see that a question, in contrast to an imperative and a statement, is characterized by an arc-shaped movement (a curved arc), as well as a movement from bottom to top. In [Grishina 2014b], we considered the importance of such a gestural parameter as the angle between the pointing hand and the speaker’s body. This angle has been shown to be related to the distance of the pointing object (the further away the object, the greater the angle). This is explained by the fact that the gap between the pointing hand and the body of the speaker sets a certain line connecting the pointing subject and the object of pointing. If the angle between the arm and the body is acute or straight, this line is straight. If the angle is greater than 90°, this line is an arc, the beginning of which is indicated by the speaker’s hand, and the beginning and end are completed by the imagination of the listener (see Fig. 5). Rice. 5. Arc between the speaker and the object of indication Since a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, a straight line naturally connects the speaker and the object of indication in the case of pragmatic proximity of the object of indication, and an arc in the case of its pragmatic distance. Thus, two trajectories are associated with the idea of ​​pragmatic distance: 1) a full arc and 2) a direction of movement from the bottom up as the beginning of a long arc, the middle and end of which are imaginary. In a similar way, one can interpret the fact that the prefix is ​​characterized by a bottom-up direction (see [Grishina 2013b]): at the gestural level, this prefix denotes forward movement over significant distances. And since the forward direction is “occupied” in Russian gestures by the future and present tense, a movement from bottom to top is used to indicate the beginning of a long arc. In addition to this, we can point out that verbs of motion, the semantics of which includes the idea of ​​moving over significant distances, most often - of all possible movements of the hand - are accompanied by an arched movement (see [Grishina 2014a]) . We believe that this metaphor is preserved in the case of a question: the arc (as well as the movement from bottom to top, which sets the beginning of a very long arc, as in Fig. 5), embodying the idea of ​​​​the distance of some object from the speaker, thereby embodies the idea of ​​its invisibility, inaccessibility to the senses, and therefore uncertainty. Thus, the increased frequency of the arc-shaped movement or upward movement in the case of a question conveys the idea of ​​\u200b\u200buncertainty, ambiguity, characteristic of a speaker who turns to the listener for information. 12 E.A. Grishina 3.2.3. Assertiveness and direction of movement As we have already shown in the previous section, statements are characterized by a more frequent use of two-handed gestures compared to questions and imperatives. Let's check whether there is a connection between the number of hands used in gestures and the direction of their movement (see Table 6). Number of hands Two hands One hand Direction forward (communicative axis) 808 (χ2=3.79) 261 (χ2=16.11) to the sides (cognitive axis) 858 (χ2=22.09) 45 (χ2=93.84) vertical axis 1129 (χ2=4.06) 352 (χ2=17.25) χ2=157.16; p=7.47–35; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 6 As we can see, the data are distributed in a mutually exclusive manner. Regardless of the type of deep illocution (imperative, question, statement), narrative two-handed gestures clearly gravitate toward the axes located in the listener’s perception zone (vertical axis and forward direction). Thus, assertiveness, directly related to the gestural narrative, is expressed in a preference for the communicative and vertical axis and in a clear repulsion from the cognitive (right-left axis). 4. Superficial illocutions in gestures 4.1. Vertical axis 4.1.1. Exclamation In this section we will consider surface illocutions carried out by gestures, which are characterized by an inclination towards the vertical axis. This is, first of all, a gestural exclamation. The fact that the exclamation has its own gestural expression was noticed by J. Calbris: she described the so-called. increasing exclamation - a gestural ligature, which is a simultaneous raising of the hand, raising the eyebrows, moving the head up and slightly back. Our material showed the following. Firstly, a gestural exclamation is not necessarily combined with an intonational exclamation: a phrase can be quite neutral intonationally, however, the gestural exclamation marker makes it clear that the speaker belongs to a particular zone in his The message is by no means neutral. Secondly, an exclamation can be expressed not by a gestural ligature, as shown by J. Calbris, but by a separate gesture. This is represented by a hand thrown up (1). (1) V. Bortko. Heart of a Dog Verbal Means when these baritones laugh. row shouting “Down with devastation!”, I Gesture hand up (open palm row, see Fig. 6) Fig. 6. Gesticulation exclamation This single gesture in the Russian gestural system is extremely frequent. Usually it is used independently, but sometimes it is built into a standard gestural phrase, which we described in detail in [Grishina 2012b]: a phrase of the structure ‘you – I – you’. The first you is carried out at the gestural level by moving the hand towards the addressee and means “listen”; then the hand performs autodeixis with an open palm on the speaker (I), which means “I speak”; then the hand again moves towards the listener (the second you), which means “you”. Thus, in its full version, a gestural phrase of this structure is deciphered as ‘pay attention to me, I’m speaking and addressing you’. The exclamatory phrase (see Fig. 7) 1) retains the first you (“listen”), 2) then the speaker’s hand returns to the speaker (indicates “I say”) and at the same time throws up, indicating an exclamation, and finally, 3) the speaker makes a very peculiar gesture, pressing his fingers to his palm, but not squeezing his palm into a fist. Grishina varnish; at the same time, the hand continues to perform autodeixis, moving towards the speaker. Thus, at the last stage of the ligature, the speaker seems to attract the interlocutor to himself, which apparently means “take my point of view, because I am experiencing emotions about what I am telling you.” Rice. 7. Exclamatory phrase We believe that the basis of the gestural exclamation is the metaphor of growth, which J. Calbris wrote about. Indeed, if something grows, then this something increases in size along the vertical axis, and therefore becomes more noticeable. Thus, by marking some part of his utterance with his hand thrown up, the speaker seems to emphasize that this part of his utterance has “grown” in comparison with the previous text and, accordingly, has become more noticeable, and therefore the listener should pay attention to her attention and not to lose sight of. 4.1.2. Marginalia A separate type of gesture, which we conventionally called marginalia, is based on this same metaphor of growth. If exclamations directly embody the metaphor of growth, manifestation, visibility, then marginalia are based on the same metaphor, but taken with a negative sign. Indeed, if something growing becomes more and more noticeable, then something that has not grown, on the contrary, remains unnoticed by others. Thus, if a certain gesture is performed in a zone below the standard communication zone (i.e. not at the level of the chest and upper abdomen, but at the level of the lower abdomen and at the level of the hips), then the gesture is thereby transferred to the mode reduced visibility. Marginalia are used in cases where the phrase they accompany is axiologically flawed from one point of view or another in comparison with the preceding or subsequent context. Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of utterances 15 The simplest case of using marginalia is to accompany a remark spoken deliberately quietly so that no one else hears: (2) Two tickets to the afternoon session Verbal (whisper) Pass it at your place. row Gesture pointing with an open palm towards the cabin - row, at the level of the speaker’s hips (3) Kin-dza-dza Verbal (to the first interlocutor) Under- (to the second interlocutor, ti- row throw us to the city, and there she) Translate. somehow we are already on our own. Gesture pointing with a thumb in a row at the second interlocutor, at the level of the speaker’s hip. The second large class of use of marginalia is phrases containing a hint or some other type of indirect speech. (4) Hanuma Verbal Take everything for free! Understand? row Just tell the owner who you took everything from. Gesture pointing with the thumb at the companion, oscillating movements with the palm, at the level of the speaker’s lower abdomen (5) Vassa Verbal There is a rumor that the co (speaks quietly) are fussing. a number of sides of the accomplices of the act... well... The signer makes oscillatory movements with his palm at hip level, so that the gesture is not visible to the interlocutor from behind the table. Analysis of the relationship between marginalia and the linguistic content of statements is the subject of a separate study. Here we only wanted to note the existence of this phenomenon and connect it with the gestural implementation of illocutions of various types. 16 E.A. Grishina 4.2. Recurrence 4.2.1. True repetition and gestural repetition Many gestures are performed repeatedly. At first glance, it seems that this repetition, firstly, is of the same plan, and secondly, is associated with the emotional state of the speaker and does not have any additional pragmatic characteristics. A closer analysis shows, however, that this is not entirely accurate, and gestures that seem to be performed in the same way are actually structured in significantly different ways and convey different meanings. In this section we will outline the situation, keeping in mind that it requires further study. First of all, it should be noted that there are truly multiple gestures, i.e. gestures that cannot be carried out in a one-time mode - as one-time gestures they simply lose their meaning. Above we already mentioned the gesture of fingering (see. ). It is clear that it is simply impossible to “flip” your fingers once - in order for this action to take place, at least one movement must be made with two different fingers. Similarly, the oscillatory movement of the palm around its axis, expressing the idea of ​​uncertainty, uncertainty, probability, is truly multiple. In addition, gestural repetition is quite common, which either accompanies lexical repetition (when the repetition of the same lexeme is accompanied by a synchronous repetition of the same gesture - example (6)), or replaces it (example (7) )) – one lexeme is used, but it accounts for a twice-repeated stressed part of the same gesture (in this case, the exposition and retraction of the gesture are one, i.e., for one retraction and exposition there is more than one stressed part ). (6) Citizen Nikanorova is waiting for you. Verbal Go away! Leave, everyone! row Gesture palm up, movement palm up, movement row hand from top to bottom hand from top to bottom Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of statements 17 (7) I want to go to prison Verbal Please go away! row The gesturing speaker waves his palm twice from the bottom row up in the direction of the intended departure of the listener. Let us note in conclusion that truly multiple gestures show a good connection with such a parameter as the type of verb, see table. 7. Multiplicity of gesture Multiple Single Direction imperfect form 42 (χ2=7.91) 1259 perfect form 30 (χ2=22.09) 2100 χ2=13.02; p=.0003; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 7 As we see, truly multiple gestures are most often accompanied by verbs of the perfect aspect, and combinations with the perfect aspect are not typical for them; single verbs are not related to the type of predicate. Thus, in the opposition “truly multiple verbs - single verbs,” the former are a marked member of the opposition and convey, among their other (lexical) meanings, the grammatical meaning of the imperfect form. The remaining types of repetition, discussed below, do not reveal any connection with the type of the verb. 4.2.2. Gestural scanning The next option for multiple gestures is gestural scanning, when the same gesture is repeated several times - in its full version, i.e. exposition – shock phase – retraction, and each occurrence of a gesture coincides not only with the predicate, but also with the syntactically associated members of the phrase. Quite often this type of gestural repetition is accompanied by chanting, i.e. pronouncing a phrase with short pauses between phonetic words, as in example (8). But phonetic scanning is not necessary - the speech sequence may not have micropauses between phonetic words, but scanning is carried out at the gestural level (9). 18 E.A. Grishina (8) Khanuma Verbal First you need to choose a toastmaster. row Gesture movement movement movement row row hand on top hand on top hand on top hand top down down down down (9) Pop Slo- I offer you a choice. spring row Gesture-vertical vertical vertical vertical row palm, drill-palm, drill-palm, super-palm, top down xy down xy down xy down Layer- Listen to me carefully. spring row Gesture vertical vertical vertical palm, top row palm, drill palm, top down xy down xy down Phonetic chant has a number of important functions in oral speech - first of all, highlighting important places in speech (in addition , it is used to transmit someone else’s speech, as well as to enter information, see, and also). It appears that gestural chant has the same function. This is confirmed by the fact that the chant is clearly associated with a top-down movement of the hand/head (of the 152 cases of gestural chant recorded in our database, in 130 cases the gesture contains a top-down movement component). As we already wrote above (see), one of the most important meanings of the downward movement (but far from the only one) in the Russian gestural system is the meaning of the imperative: we believe that gestural scanning has the meaning 'pay attention', ' listen to me', directed at the addressee, i.e. represents one of the variants of gestural emphasis4. 4 Other options for gestural emphasis are, for example, pointing with a finger or moving the head forward; the latter, as has already been shown in [Grishina 2013a], was largely divorced from Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of the utterance 19 In conclusion, we note that gestural scanning, according to our data, is not associated with any lexical and grammatical parameters, and this Naturally: like linguistic scanning itself, gestural scanning can be superimposed on a phrase of any grammatical structure and lexical composition. 4.2.3. Phatic repetition Many gestures that give the impression of being multiple, upon careful analysis turn out to be single. Consider, for example, such a fairly standard gesture as extending your hand/arms to the person listening, palm/palms up. This is an extremely frequent gesture that means ‘pay attention to me, I’m asking/asking/saying’. It is performed in two modes - either as a standard single forward movement towards the listener, or as the same single forward movement of the hand, but accompanied in the shock phase by small repeated movements, oscillations, perpendicular to the main line of movement: Fig. 8 What happens in this case? The speaker extends his hand to the listener and fixes it in the shock phase. If the hand continues to remain motionless, the listener stops paying attention to it. In order to activate the listener’s attention without destroying the gesture, the speaker makes small oscillatory movements with his hand, fixed in the shock phase, along an axis perpendicular to the main direction of the gesture. Thus, the gesture retains the form characteristic of its shock phase, but at the same time, with the help of vibrations, it continues to attract the listener’s attention to the speaker’s gesticulation. Thus, in this case, the oscillatory movements perform a phatic (contact-establishing) function. deictic zone of meaning and is often used only as an emphatic means. 20 E.A. Grishina If we correctly interpreted the internal structure of gestures with phatic repetition, they 1) should gravitate towards post-impact retention of the gesture, i.e. to fixation of the shock stage of the gesture for a noticeable time, and 2) should gravitate towards provocative statements. And indeed, if we analyze the data, we will see that out of 105 examples of phatic repetition, more than two thirds (75 cases) are associated with post-stress retention, when the stress phase of the gesture falls on more than one phonetic word. As for provoking statements, it turned out (see Table 8) that phatic repetition clearly gravitates towards the question, the imperative is neutral in this regard, and phatic repetition is not typical for statements. Multiplicity of gesture Phatic multiplicity Single gestures Direction question 17 (χ2=10.81) 206 imperative 25 615 statement 63 (χ2=1.85) 2072 χ2=13.44; p=.001; the distributions are reliable, the parameters are related Table 8 The preference for the question rather than the imperative is apparently due to the fact that phatic repetition most often accompanies the gesture shown in Fig. 8, which is highly characteristic of the question. 5. Conclusion So, we tried to show how exactly the types of illocutions are reflected in Russian gestures. As we can see, the gestural system turns out to be a fairly powerful and subtle means of differentiating the pragmatic components of an utterance. It should be noted that different ways of designating illocutions are easily combined with each other in everyday gestures. For example, a gestural exclamation can be combined with phatic repetition, as in example (10), where the first exclamation, combined with phatic repetition, attracting the listener’s attention, coincides with the syntagma I am three years old and conveys the speaker’s strong feelings about the designated term; Gestures and pragmatic characteristics of the utterance 21 The second exclamation coincides with the word feather bed and denotes the speaker’s emotions regarding this household item. (10) Wedding Verbal sequence I’ve been collecting feather beds for three years! Exclamation open palm, open palm, thrown thrown up up up higher level Phatic multiple co- multiple swings forward backward Phatic repetition can be combined with narrative gestures (11). (11) Ilf and Petrov were traveling on a tram. Verbal series Are there collecting boxes? people Exclamation two-handed gesture, palm-holding configuration (the speaker holds an imaginary box in his hands) Phatic multiple oscillations of both hands up and down. In this example, the phatic repetition, conveying the illocution of the question, coincides with the assertive part of the question 'people who collect boxes', and the same gestural zone depicts the content of the narrative 'collect boxes'. We have already written above about how an exclamation is integrated into the gestural phrase ‘you – I – you’. The types of combinations of gestural illocutions with each other, as well as their relationship with the phonetic and intonation components of speech, are still awaiting their research. Let us note in conclusion that the simultaneous execution of different types of illocutions at the gestural level often creates a feeling of unsystematic and chaotic gesticulation. A more detailed analysis, however, shows that we are not dealing here with chaos, but with a rather branched and complex multi-level system, the study of which opens up prospects for both linguists and specialists in cognitive science and psychology. 22 E.A. Grishina Literature Grishina 2011 – E.A. Grishina. Grammar of gaze: direction of gaze as a linguistic factor // Philology, No. 1, 2011, p. 50-71 Grishina 2012a – E.A. Grishina. Hand instructions as a system (based on the Russian Multimedia Corpus) // Questions of Linguistics, No. 3, 2012, p. 3-50 Grishina 2012b – E.A. Grishina. Autodeixis: types and meanings // Computer linguistics and intellectual technologies: Based on the materials of the annual International conference “Dialogue’2012”. Vol. 11 (18). - M.: Publishing house of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2012, p. 173-186 Grishina 2012c – E.A. Grishina. Pointing with the thumb: basic linguistic functions // Poljarnyj Vestnik/Polyarny Vestnik, V. 15, 2012, p. 3-30, Tromsø University Library, Norway. Grishina 2013a – E.A. Grishina. Directions with the head as a system // Questions of linguistics, No. 3, 2013, p. 90-130 Grishina 2013b – E.A. Grishina. Gesticulation profiles of Russian prefixes // Computer linguistics and intellectual technologies: Based on the materials of the annual International conference “Dialogue’2013”. Vol. 12 (19). - M.: Publishing house of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2013, p. 250-271 Grishina 2013c – E.A. Grishina. Temporal deictic gestures // News of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Series of literature and language, 2013, volume 72, no. 1, p. 3-31 Grishina 2014a – E.A. Grishina. Vertical axis in gestures: linguistic aspect (manuscript) Grishina 2014b – E.A. Grishina. About gestural overtones // Current issues of theoretical and applied phonetics: Collection in honor of the anniversary of O.F. Krivnova (in print) Calbris 2008 – G. Calbris. From left to right...: Coverbal gestures and their symbolic use of space // A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture. University Amsterdam / Europa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder, 2008, p. 27–53 Calbris 2011 – G. Calbris. Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Amsterdam/Philadelpjia, 2011 Grishina et al. 2012 – E. Grishina, S. Savchuk, D. Sichinava. Multimodal Parallel Russian Corpus (MultiPARC): Main Tasks and General Structure // Workshop Best Practices for Speech Corpora in Linguistic Research in the framework of LREC’2012 (Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, 2012), p. 13-16. Litvinenko 2013 – A.O. Litvinenko. Reported speech in spoken discourse: intonation as a means of integration // Computer linguistics and intellectual technologies: Based on the materials of the annual International Conference “Dialogue’2013”. Vol. 12 (19). - M.: Publishing house of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2013, p. 446-454 Müller 2004 – C. Mueller. The Palm-Up-Open-Hand. A case of a gesture family? // C. Mueller & R. Posner (Eds.), The Semantics and pragmatics of every-day gesture. The Berlin conference. Berlin, p. 233-256 Streeck 2012 – J. Streeck. Pointing, directing, dwelling. // The 5th Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies: The Communicative Body in Development. Book of Abstracts. July24-27, 2012, Lund, Sweden, p. 87-88

1. Strength of character lies not in the ability to withstand a blow, but in the strength to rise after it. (S. S. Povalyaev)
2. There is nothing more colorless than the character of a spineless person. (Jean de La Bruyère)
3. People with an ardent character rarely have constant friendships. (Luc de Clapier Vauvenargues)
4. People with weak character are not capable of being sincere. (Francois de La Rochefoucauld)
5. Despotism reigns only over automata. People only have character in free countries. (Claude Adrian Helvetius)
6. Character consists of an energetic desire to achieve the goals that each person sets for himself. (Goethe)
7. The best possible combination is power and mercy; the worst is weakness and pugnacity. (Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill)
8. Look at women's morals, but do not imitate them. (Menander)
9. Character is power over oneself, talent is power over others. (Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky)
10. To justify ourselves in our own eyes, we often convince ourselves that we are unable to achieve our goal; in fact, we are not powerless, but weak-willed. (Francois de La Rochefoucauld)
11. Frequent imitation becomes its own character. (Marcus Fabius Quintilian)
12. Character brings people together much more than intelligence. (Joseph Ernest Renan)
13. I like some of the good qualities of old age in a young man, and some of the good qualities of youth in an old man. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
14. Nothing brings people closer together than the similarity of characters. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
15. Stubbornness has only the form of character, but not its content. (Immanuel Kant)
16. Arrogance is stronger where defense is weaker. (Gaius Sallust Crispus)
17. Character is a certain form of will and interest that makes itself significant. (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel)
18. 18. If the character as a whole is good, then it does not matter if there are some shortcomings in it. (Charles Louis Montesquieu)
19. Activities leave an imprint on character. (Ovid)
20. You must have aversion to bloodshed in your blood. (Stanislav Jerzy Lec)
21. A decent person is always a simpleton. (Mark Valery Martial)
22. In the absence of other means, a person's character can never be understood more accurately than by the joke to which he is offended. (Georg Christoph Lichtenberg)
23. It is not the act as such, but the intentions that determine moral character. (Democritus)
24. There is no one more determined than him in indecision and stronger in weakness. (Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill)
25. Man himself is the final creator of his character. (Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin)
26. Strength of character is often nothing more than weakness of feelings. (Arthur Schnitzler)
27. The history of our feelings shapes our character and determines our destiny. (Sheldon Routh)
28. A person without firm rules almost always lacks character: if he had character, he would feel how much he needs rules. (Sébastien-Roch Nicolas de Chamfort)
29. You must have the strength of character to say and do the same thing. (A.I. Herzen)
30. Character is like a tree, and reputation is its shadow. We care about the shade, but what we really need to think about is the tree. (Abraham Lincoln)
31. Talents are formed in peace, characters are formed amid the storms of life. (Goethe)
32. Solid character must be combined with flexibility of mind. (Vauvenargues)
33. The weaker and simpler people are best judged by their characters, while the more intelligent and hidden ones are best judged by their goals. (F. Bacon)
34. Character is nothing more than a long-term skill. (Plutarch)
35. Good characters, like good writing, are not so much amazing at the beginning as at the end. (Voltaire)
36. Character consists of the ability to act according to principles. (Immanuel Kant)
37. The stronger a person’s character, the less prone he is to inconstancy in love. (Stendhal)
38. By their natural inclinations people are close to each other, but by their habits they are far from each other. (Confucius)
39. Constant importance is only a mask for mediocrity. (Voltaire)
40. Those who have an orderly character have a well-ordered life. (Democritus)
41. Those who lack a decisive will lack intelligence. (William Shakespeare)

speech (II). Also important are the indicators that define the utterance as a general product of speaking (III) and the external side of this activity, i.e. phonation (IV).

Thus, the formation of an utterance as a product of speaking in the process of mastering a foreign language can

1 See – semantic.

2 Ex. – subject.

Continuation

determined by the following groups of indicators, which at the same time act as characteristics of speaking activity:

Consideration of the subject content of speaking as a type of speech activity, the internal side of this process and the psychological nature of its product - a speech utterance - clearly convinces us that learning to speak a foreign language is a labor-intensive process of solving a complex problem with many unknowns. Analysis of the utterance as a product of speaking from the point of view of considering its psychological nature shows that the ability to speak a foreign language presupposes the ability of a person to express his thought at different levels of utterance - from simple substantial to thematic. The teacher's task is to purposefully organize all the necessary learning conditions, the first of which is the choice and hierarchical organization of increasing difficulties of various statements as units of learning. Preliminary studies have shown that the version of such training shown in Table 5 is effective.

Let us now move on to a consideration of the psychological mechanisms of speaking activity.

General characteristics of a judgment (statement)

In mental-speech activity, when exchanging information and information with each other, people use forms of thinking that contain a certain thought about the real world, about objects, about the properties of these objects, about the connections between real or imagined objects of reality. All this is fixed in statements or judgments.

Judgment - a form of thinking in which something is affirmed or denied regarding the existence of objects, connections between an object and its properties, or between objects.

For example, "V. A. Sidorov - judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation"; “The Soviet Army saved world civilization from fascism.”

In our ordinary logic, which is two-valued, a proposition has one of two truth values: it is either true or false. If what is affirmed or denied in a judgment corresponds to reality, then it is true. Otherwise the proposition is false. However, if the correspondence of a judgment to reality is not obvious and cannot be easily established, then its truth must be confirmed by other judgments whose truth has been established. It is impossible, for example, to recognize as either true or false the proposition: “Citizen I. A. Petrov committed an official misconduct.” This proposition must be proven.

In three-valued logic, a third value is added to these two values ​​- uncertainty. For example, the proposition: “There is no life on Venus” is currently uncertain.

Judgments are divided into simple And complex. A simple proposition is a proposition that expresses the connection between two concepts. A judgment consisting of several simple judgments is called complex. The characteristics of complex judgments will express the content of simple ones.

A simple proposition has a subject, a predicate, a connective and a quantifier. They have their own definition and designation.

Subject of judgment - this is the concept of the subject of judgment, the logical subject. It is denoted by the Latin letter “S” (from Lat. subjectum).

Predicate of judgment The concept of a sign of an object considered in a judgment is called a logical predicate. Its designation is “P” (from lat. praedicatum).

Subject and predicate are terms of judgment. Each of them plays a cognitive role.

Bunch can be expressed by one word (is, essence, etc.), a group of words, a dash, or a simple agreement of words.

Quantifier(quantifier word) indicates the relation of the judgment to the entire volume of the concept expressing the subject, or to its part. It is expressed by the words “all”, “none”, “some”, etc.

For example, in the judgment: “All students of the Russian Academy of Justice are active participants in scientific conferences,” the subject (S) is the concept “students of the Russian Academy of Justice,” and the predicate (P) is the concept “active participants in scientific conferences.” The predicate reflects what is asserted in relation to the subject of the judgment. The connective in this example is the word “is”, the quantifier is “all”.

The linguistic form of expressing a judgment is a sentence. Just as concepts cannot arise and exist outside of words and phrases, judgments cannot arise and exist outside of sentences. However, this does not mean a complete coincidence of the judgment and the proposal. There is a certain relationship between them: a sentence is the grammatical form of a judgment, and a judgment is the logical content of a sentence. Moreover, judgments are not expressed by all types of sentences. They are expressed using narrative sentences that contain some kind of message or information. The sentences themselves are divided into narrative, incentive and interrogative.

Interrogative sentences, with the exception of sentences with a rhetorical question, are not judgments. For example, the rhetorical question “Who doesn’t want happiness?” involves a statement expressing the belief that everyone wants happiness. Therefore, this sentence is a judgment.

Incentive sentences are also not judgments, with the exception of those expressing military commands, orders, appeals, slogans. Such sentences contain a thought and are judgments. For example, commands such as: “Not a step back!”, “Attack!”, as well as the exclamation “Take care of the world!” - contain specific thoughts, and therefore they can be called judgments.

To understand the essence of judgments, as well as their role in cognitive and practical activities, including judicial ones, their classification is of great importance. In the history of logic, several classification options are known, differing in the chosen bases. The most stable of them remains the option put forward by Aristotle. It has an undoubted advantage in terms of understanding the structure of the judgment itself, forming a complete understanding of the objects of the external world. The Aristotelian classification is based on the following features: the content of the predicate; quality of the bundle; subject volume; modality of judgment; type of logical conjunctions.

Let's consider this classification. It is necessary to know it so that in the presentation of a specific thought everyone can see the largest palette of forms of judgments, their advantages and disadvantages.

Logic does not study words, but studies statements

L. Wittgenstein

In modern logic, two terms have emerged - “judgment” and “statements”. They denote a special form of thinking, in contrast to concepts and inferences. In traditional logic, the term “Judgment” is used, and in modern symbolic logic, “expressions” (logic of statements), we will further operate with the term “statements” and we will operate with the term “philosophy”.

Statements are a logical-semantic category that denotes a form of expression of thoughts and a form of expression of knowledge; it has a certain meaning and, accordingly, can be true or false. This is a form of thinking through which it is somewhat affirmed or denied about a class of empirical or abstract objects, the relationship between objects of thoughts is established, the presence or absence of properties in a class of objects or elements of a certain class is recorded.

The linguistic form of expression of a statement is made up of sentences, but not every sentence expresses statements. Such proposals include: announcements, promises, apologies, oaths, advice, oaths, etc.

The main logical characteristic of a statement is truth or falsity (see 25)

Statements as an element of a certain reasoning have the form of affirmation or negation

affirmative statements somewhat assert, in particular, the existence of objects, phenomena, processes; the departure of certain events; inherent in certain properties of a certain object, etc. For example: “All people by nature strive for knowledge” (Aristotle), “Some people violate the laws of social life.”

negative statements somewhat deny, say, the fact of the existence of objects, phenomena, processes; the departure of certain events; inherent in certain properties of a certain object and under: “Chimeras do not exist,” “Some sentences do not express statements of love.”

Confirming and negative statements are also called categorical statements (Greek - affirmative, unconditional)

All statements that are the object of logical analysis are divided into the following types: simple and complex, statements about attitude; modal expressions; questions and answers

Simple saying

A simple statement is a statement that does not contain other statements. In modern logic they are called atomic statements. A simple statement is divided into attributive, existential, relational.

attributive statement (Latin - property, sign) - a statement in which one or another property is attributed to a certain class of objects, subclass, individual elements of the class or is denied from them: "All goods have their own value","Some students do not study mathematics" .

Existential statements (lat - existence) somewhat assert the existence of certain objects or deny their existence: “Organic life on Earth exists”, “There are no causeless phenomena” The formal expression of the existential statement x - exists; x - does not exist - exists; x - I don’t understand.

Existential statements are the object of study of a special direction of modern logical research, called the logic of existence (see 433)

Relational statements (Latin - report) affirm or deny relationships between individual objects or classes of objects; same as attitude statements

A statement in which the existence of a certain relationship between objects is determined is called affirmative. For example: "All metals are heavier than water"

A statement that defines the absence of a specific relationship between subjects is called negative (“There is no good neighborliness between states X and B”)

Relational expressions are the object of study of a special direction of logical research, called relational logic, which is an integral part of predicate logic (see 422)

Logical characteristics of an attributive statement

attributive statement (Latin - property, sign) - attributes this or that property to a known class of objects, subclass, individual elements of the class, or denies these properties from them. It is the object of study of traditional logic and predicate logic (a direction of research in symbolic logic).

In traditional logic, the structure and types of attributive statements are defined, artificial symbols are introduced to designate their structural parts and types, relationships between various types of attributive statements are established, and a theory of deductive inference is developed based on the establishment of relationships between attributive statements.

In symbolic logic, attributive statements are formalized in the language of predicate logic, that is, with the help of universality and existence quantifiers, which makes it possible to more accurately determine their content and truth value (see 422.2).

The structure of an attributive statement of an attributive statement consists of the following structural parts: subject, predicate and connection

Subject (Latin subjectum - enclosed) - part of a statement that expresses the subject of reflection and is denoted by the symbol S

Predicate (Latin praedicatum - said) - part of a statement, means a property (attribute) inherent in the subject (subject considerations), and is denoted by a symbol. R

The copula (Latin copula) establishes the relationship between the subject (S) and the predicate (P) due to the assertion of the presence of a certain property. P (attribute) of the subject of consideration or the negation of this property of connections in an attributive statement can be expressed explicitly or implicitly. In natural language, an explicitly expressed connection is expressed by the words “is”, “the essence” or “is not”, “not the essence”, and an implicitly expressed connection is indicated by the content of the statement; the language is indicated by the meaning of language.

The subject and predicate, which by means of a connection create attributive statements, are called terms. Symbolically, the structure of an attributive statement has the form: S is. R; S is not there. R. For example, in the vis word "Earth is a living planet", the subject (S) is the term "Earth", the predicate (P) is a term expressing the property "living planet", the connective is "is" Structure: S is, sound language - "є".. Structure: S є R.

Types of attributive statements

Attributive statements are divided into types according to quality and quantity. The quality distinguishes between affirmative and negative statements.

An affirmative statement has the logical form S is. P, and the negative - the logical form of S is not. R

By quantity, general, partial, single utterances are distinguished

A general statement is a statement in which the property. P is attributed to or negated in all elements of a certain class. In traditional logic, it is depicted by the formula “All S are. P” or “No S is there. P” For example: “All states have their own symbols of statehood”, “No true statement is false, no true statement is false.”

A partial statement is a statement that contains a certain property. P is attributed to some elements of a certain class (subclass) or is denied from them: “Some authors publish their works under the pseudonym OM”, “Some people do not go in for sports” In traditional logic, it is depicted by the formula: “Some S are. P” or “Some S are not there is.

A single statement is a statement in which the property. P is assigned to or denied to an element of a certain class: “Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system”, “Newton did not invent hypotheses” (“I don’t invent hypotheses,” wrote Newton), “J. Lamarck is the author of the term “biology” In traditional logic it is represented by the formula: “This S is. P" or "This S is not. Use the formula: “Tse S є. Р” or “Tse S not є. Р”.

In modern symbolic logic, the quantity of an attributive statement is expressed by a quantifier (Latin quantum - how much). In natural language, a quantifier is expressed by the words “all”, “none”, “some”, “only one”, “and exists” These words indicate how many objects belonging to a certain class (a class as a whole, a subclass or an element of a class) are inherent property of a class or element class) power is attached. R.

The general statement, which contains the words “all”, “nor”, ​​is expressed by the universal quantifier and is denoted by the symbol V. The formal expression of the general statement with the quantifier “all” is VxP (x)

A partial statement containing the word “some” is expressed by an existential quantifier and is denoted by the symbol 3. The formal expression of a partial statement with the quantifier “some” is Zxr (x)

Separation of attributive statements by quality and quantity together:

zagalnosverdzhuvalni, zagalnozaperechny, chastkovostverjuvalni and chastkovozoperechny statements

Zagalnostverdzhuvalne statements assert the inherent properties. P to all elements of a certain class. For example: “All norms. The Constitutions of Ukraine are norms of direct action.” In traditional logic, the verjuvalne of a statement is a formal expression: “All S is. P” and is denoted by a symbol. A (the first loud letter of the Latin word Affirmo - affirmationAffirmo - confirmed).

The behind-the-scenes statement denies the property. P for all elements of a certain class: “Not a single student in our group knows the ancient Greek language.” In traditional logic, it is depicted by the formula: “Not a single S is. P” and is denoted by the symbol. E (the first vowel of the Latin word Neqo - negation and Neqo - crossed).

A partial statement asserts a certain property. P in a certain number of elements of a certain class (in a subclass of class. A): "Some ancient Greek philosophers are students. Socrates" In traditional logic and it bears the formal expression "Some S are. P" and is denoted by the symbol / (the second loud letter of the Latin word Af firmo - statement firmo - confirmation).

A partial statement denies a certain property. P in a certain number of elements of a certain class (a subclass of class. A): “Some scientists do not come up with hypotheses”, “Some languages ​​are not difficult to learn” c. Traditional logic bears the formal expression "Some S are not. P" and is denoted by the symbol. O (the second loud letter of the Latin word Nego - the negation of the word Nego - interfering).

The distribution of terms in an attributive statement is the relationship between the terms - subject (S) and predicate (P) in the structure of the attributive statement, when the scope of the subject (S) and predicate (P) is determined. If the term (S or. P) is accepted in full, then it is distributed and indicated by a sign; If the term is not used in full, then it is unallocated and is indicated by the sign -.

The distribution of terms is determined based on the following rules:

1. The term, which denotes the subject (S), is distributed in general expressions and undistributed in private statements

2. The term that the predicate (P) denotes is distributed in negative statements and undistributed in affirmative statements. The distribution of terms has the form

The relationships between terms in an attributive statement have the following circular images

Relations between attributive statements - the relationship between four types of attributive statements:. L-zagalnostverdzhuvalnym (all 5 are there. R); ostverjuvalnym (some 5 is. R); 0-partially transverse (some 5 not e.P). These relationships are depicted using a “logical square” that looks like this.

Based on the establishment of relationships between the four types of attributive statements, their spivism or spivhibness is determined

1. Statements that are in a relation of contrariness (Latin contrarius - opposite) - all S is. P(A) and there is no S. P (E) - cannot be simultaneously true, but can be false at the same time. For example: “All scientists come up with hypotheses” (x) and “Not a single scientist comes up with hypotheses * (*guess hypotheses* (*).

2. Statements are in a relation of subordination - all S are there. P (L) and some S are there. R (G) is not 5. P(E) and some S are not. P (0) - can be both true or fall into the sea" (and) and "Some rivers fall into the sea" (/ fall into the sea" (/).

3. Statements that are in relation to contrariety (pidprotility) - there are some S. P(I) and some S are not. P (O) - can be true at the same time. For example: “Some planets of the solar system have their own satellites” (s) and “Some planets of the solar system do not have their own satellites” (/).

4. Statements that are in relation to counter-narrative (Latin contradictorius - contradiction) - all S is. P(A) and some S are not. P (O) is not S. P(E) and some S are there. P (true or at the same time false; one of them is true and the other is false: “All students pass exams” (i) and “Some students do not take exams” (hayut іspitiv" (x).

Complex statements

Complex statements are formed from two or more simple statements using logical unions (sentence connections) negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, equivalence. New development of complex statements based on simple ones with the help of logical unions is a special logical operation. Each simple statement included in the structure of a complex statement is its generic part and, accordingly, the truth of a complex statement is determined on the basis of establishing the truth of a simple statement.

negative statements (Latin nego - negation) - a complex statement formed as a result of the negation of an affirmative statement using the conjunction not, the phrase is incorrect, which is a logical operation of transformation (Latin - inversion) of an affirmative statement. A, as a result of which a negative statement not-A is created, which takes on a new meaning. For example: “Language is only a means of communication between people” (A), “It is wrong that language is only a means of communication between people” (not-Anya between people) (not-A).

Negation - in symbolic logic - is a propositional connection, which is expressed by the words “wrong”, which is denoted by the symbol -i. The negation formula is *. A. If an affirmative statement. But it is true, then in its negation - “And false ones -”. And hibne.

. Truth table negation:

The operation of objection is carried out over all types of statements: simple (attributive, relational, existential), complex, modal, etc.

A conjunctive statement (Latin - connection, association) is formed from two or more simple statements (conjunctive) using the conjunctions and, a, and,. In symbolic logic, it is denoted by the symbol l (ab so. Rome a complex statement. A l. B l. C (“Every person has the right to life, liberty and personal integrity”), four simple statements. A,. B,. C,. And), - we get a complex statement. A l. In l. S l 2) (“Means of fast communication are television, radio, fax, e-mail)” and pos, e-mail)” and under.

. Truth table for conjunction:

disjunctive expressions (Latin - disjunction) are formed from two or more simple statements (disjuncts) using the conjunctions or, or. Disjunction is divided into strict (strong) and non-strict (sl labkuu).

a non-strict disjunction is expressed in natural language by the conjunctions or, or and is denoted by the symbol V. The formal expression of a non-strict disjunction takes the form. A V. B (“Face. L likes to read books or watch movies “ilmi”).

a non-strict disjunction is true when the simple expressions (disjuncts) are true or at least one of the disjuncts is true

. Truth table for non-strict disjunction.

Strict disjunction is expressed in natural language by the conjunctions either, or (or, or) and is denoted by the symbol X depending on the number of disjuncts, the formal expression of strict disjunction takes the form ALB ("The whole world either always existed in an unchanged state, or was created at some time in past"). A _L. In 1C (“Trucks use either gasoline, diesel fuel, or natural gas as fuel”). A 1. B J_. From 1 D (“All bodies move either in a circle, or in a parabola, or in a hyperbola, or in an ellipse”) and hyperbola, or in an ellipse”) and under.

A strict disjunction is true when only one of the disjuncts (statements A, B, C, etc.) is true.

. Truth table for strict disjunction:

The conditional statement is constructed using conjunctions if, then; only on condition: then when, then (“If the crystal is heated, it will melt”, “Only on condition that the article is shortened, will it be published.”) In modern logic, a conditional statement is defined in the context of logical implication and is called an implicative statement and equivalent statements and equivalent statements.

Implicative statements (Latin implico - closely connect) are formed on the basis of two simple statements. A and. B using the conjunction if, then. In symbolic logic, the conjunction if y then is affected by the symbol vol - (or). Formal expression of an implicative statement. A -. In, where. A and. In simple expressions, - is the following symbol. B is a follow symbol. In iz. A.

The peculiarity of this statement (implication) is that it is formed as a result of combining two simple statements. A and. B, of which. A - antecedent (Latin antecedens - previous), i.e. Length of stav, a. B - consequent (Latin consequens - logical conclusion), there is a consequence. Antecedent. A precedes the consequent. In, as a consequence, if the antecedent. And if it is true, it is also a consequent. In true. For example: “If you believe in a student, if he does not pass all exams perfectly, then he will not receive an increased scholarship.”

depending on the establishment of a formal or informal connection between the antecedent. And the consequent. In an implicative statement, the following types of implication are distinguished: causal; material; strict; flax strength

Causal implication (Latin causa - cause) is a relationship between an antecedent. And consequent 2?,. Which in content expresses the cause-and-effect relationship between objects and phenomena of the objective world. Accordingly, antecedent. A is the cause, and the consequent. B - consequence: “If there is fire, then there is smoke” (fire is the cause of smoke), if there is a phenomenon. Ah, that is a phenomenon. B (phenomenon. And there is a reason for the phenomenon. The fault of the phenomenon. B).

The concept of “causal implication” defines the ontological connection between objects, phenomena of the objective world, which is established on the basis of objective laws - the laws of nature, social development, and this connection in the statement has an informal high character.

The concept of “material implication”, “strict implication”, “strong implication” defines a purely formal connection between the antecedent. And the consequent. In a statement abstracted from its content according to the formula rmulo. A. B (for the content of these concepts, see 432 for more details; see the amazing details in 4.3.2).

An equivalent expression (late Latin aequivalens - even and to be strong; to weigh, to have a price) is formed on the basis of two simple statements using conjunctions if and only if, then and only then, when; only on condition; only in case. In symbolic logic it is denoted by the symbol = (or -). Formal expression of equivalent expression. A d. B, where. A and. B - simple statements (“If and only and if in a state. If the principles of the rule of law really apply, then it is a legal state”, “Two parallel lines if and only if they do not intersect” then, if the stench does not stir”) .

Equivalent statements are true when simple statements. A and. B have the same truth value (both true or both false)

. Truth table for equivalent expression:

Modal statements

The modal statement establishes the type of connection between the subject and the predicate and clarifies its ontological or logical status. The type of connection is determined using the words included in the structure of the vislovlyuv. Anna. These words are called modality or modal operators.

Modality (lat. modus - measure, method) is a property of a statement that determines the nature of the objective relationships between objects and phenomena discussed in the statement. These are additional words that enter the structure of statements and give them new meaning. Such words include: “necessary”, “possible”, “really”, “random”, “allowed”, “forbidden”, “knows”, “believer”, “well fenced”; "knows"; "believes"; "good"; "bad" ta in.

Depending on which modality provides the statement with a new meaning and evaluates whether it is affirmed or denied, types of modalities are distinguished:

Aletichni: necessary; Maybe; really; by chance (“It is necessary to protect nature”, “Perhaps the person. H has the ability to draw”, “Indeed, everything is changing in the world”, “He met a friend on the street by chance””), from a friend on Vipadkovo Street”);

Deontic: obligatory; allowed; prohibited (“All citizens of Ukraine must necessarily comply with the law in their actions”, “The defendant is allowed to have a lawyer”, “Students are prohibited from talking on mobile phones during lectures and practical classes”) and practical classes”);

Epistemic: knows; believes; doubts; known; unknown; convinced (“Oleg knows where the city is. Canberra”, “Igor believes that there is life after death”, “N doubts that the politician 3. Keep your election promises”, “Person. K knows who committed this crime”) obi. K. knows who is evil");

Temporary: was; There is; will be (“Yesterday there was a flood”, “Tomorrow the weather will be good”)

In addition to those mentioned, there are other types of modalities. Modal statements are the object of study of modern modal logic (see 432)