Transmission and proxemes in the literature works

In this paper, our interest is the description of the mechanisms, methods and techniques of verbalization of a proxeme behavior in the language of literary texts. For example, in describing of a proxeme behavior of the characters the choice of an author of precise artistic and linguistic means plays a decisive role.

Comparative analysis of the works of M.Auezov «The path of Abai» and «Abay Zholy» has shown that the most numerous semantic group of words, used by writers at recreating of a proxeme behavior, are verbs. For each group it is characterized the use in the form of this or that reference point with related kinds of spatial relationships.

Being the most complex and the most capacious category of a language a verb, as noted by an academician V.V.Vinogradov, is the most constructive category of words. In the Kazakh language verbs «are the most active in the formation of phrases. All names, adverbs, gerunds, words with postpositions and service names can combine with them» [1, 590]. The verb as a core component of a word combination is able to attach any noun, being addicted to it to itself.

Acting as the main component of a proxeme word combination, the Russian verb operates a dependent constructure, as in the Kazakh language. In the Turkic languages a management is widespread as a way of syntactic relation of words and in the word composition.

«In the composition of the verb word-combinations are about 50% of structural variants are formed by management, which allows us to consider managing as the most syntactic means of communication in word-combinations. By contiguity are formed 40% of all verb word-combinations and by matching – more than 10%».

In the Kazakh language verbs in their values and syntactic functions are closely linked to different names. In this case verbs require the names of a certain grammatical formation, showing their relationship to each other. Names as dependent components together with verbs form the most common type of word-combinations, which, unlike the others, are called the verb word-combinations with controlled names [2, 279]. Thus, both in Kazakh and in Russian languages, the verb is a syntactically organizing center of a word-combination and is the main component of the word-combination of a proxeme meaning in the Kazakh and Russian languages (due to polysemy of the majority of the Kazakh and Russian verbs it is actually referred to the lexicalsemantic variants of a particular content):

1. motion and movement: to get – shygu, to walk – zhuru;
2. stay: to be, to stay – bolu;
3. actions: to call – shakyru;
4. states: to sit – otyru, to stand – turu.

On the basis of semantics of all post-positives, combined with these verbs, is a proxeme meaning. They define the transition of a subject of a verb to a new proxeme state – its rising, lowering, removal, place, and promotion, i.e. it is presented as a variety of the localizer.

Guided by tasks of our research, the analysis of proxeme units for a recreation of a proxeme behavior in the work of M. Auezov «The path of Abai» and «Abay Zholy» can be represented in the following table:

Table 1 – Frequency of proxeme units in a literary text

Thus, the lexical units of the Russian and Kazakh languages, concluding in its semantic a component, indicating a proxeme, are expressed mainly by verbs and verb phrasemes.

As it is shown by an analysis of the factual material, a core group of proxemes are made dynamic proxemes, characterizing different forms of movement relative to another or other objects of reality.

In the Russian and Kazakh languages dynamic proxemes are expressed by verbal wordcombinations with an adverb and prepositions of a dynamic localization in the Russian language, and in the Kazakh language case affixes and service names are corresponded to them.

Based on the above, in the work the corpus of proxemes extract from literary texts, is systematized in our proposed model of lexicographical description of proxemes of the Russian and Kazakh languages.

To go to meet (here: went to meet to smb.), is expressed by a verb + an adverb.

Interpretation

In the direction opposite to someone, something, moving to get closer. In a figurative sense: (to go to meet) sympathizing, provide assistance to someone, something. The prefix You – a verb prefix, means:

1) the movement from the inside direction.

In the Russian language there are such prefixes, which mean: 2) exhaustion of an action, to achieve

something, the direction (to learn, to beg), 3) with a particle -ся – a complete exhaustion of an action and a direction (to rest in a bed, to sleep).

Commentary

This proxema means a movement, expressing a desire of a communicant to reduce the distance to the maximum proximity.

Text illustration

I rode up to the house, she went to meet and began to tie her horse, and a song of mine went for a walk around the world. That’s it – he said, and winked to Zhumabai [4, 26].

Comparison.

Aldynan shygu (here: aldymnan shygyp), is expressed by an adverb + a verb

Interpretation

Қарсы кездесті, жолықты, құрметтеп қарсы алды.

Translation

Алдынан қарсы шығу – to go out, to go to meet.

Text illustration

Келсем, алдымнан өзі шығып, атымды байлап жатыр, – деп, Жұмабай жаққа қарап, иек қағып қойды [3, 7].

Thus, the given proxemes went to meet in the Russian language and aldymnan shygyp in the Kazakh language are based on the location of the communicants – dynamic proxemes, by the nature of the impact on the perceiver – visual, by the morphological feature – a verbal-adverbial, by the nature of participation of communicants in using proxemes – individual.

In the linguistic literature the combination of a verb with a post-positive is understood in different ways: 1) as free combinations, and 2) as units of a verb class unity. Regarding to the second component of these combinations, it is considered as an adverb. Following Anosova we consider that a postverb adverbial element is functionally dependent and completely dependent element, forming an united semantic complex with a verb to express the proxeme behavior of communicants.

Our observations have shown that in the system of speech parts of both languages are language means, expressing a proxeme behavior, among them a verb is the frequent. This phenomenon is common not only for the compared languages, but for all languages of the world, i.e., conceptual categories are universal for all languages.

In both languages between the main and dependent component of a word-combination of a proxeme behavior prevails a subordinate connection, although it has its own peculiarities in each of the languages being compared.

References

1. Frumkina R.M. Psiholingvistika: ucheb. dlya stud. vyssh. ucheb.zavedenii. – M.: Akademiya, 2001. – 320 s.
2. Kratkii kazakhsko-russkii slovar’ / К. Bektaev, А. Аhabaev, Е. Kerimbaev, К. Moldabekov. – Аlmaty: Glavnaya redaksiya Kazakhsoi sovetskoi entsiklopedii, 1991. – 256 s.
3. Auezov M. Abai zholy: Roman-epopeya. – Аlmaty: Zhazushy, 1990. – Т. 1.– 608 s.
4. Auezov М. Put’ Abaya. Roman. – Аlma-Аta: Zhazushy, 1977. – Т. 1. – 608 s.
5. Birdwhistell R.L. Introduction to kinesics / University of Louisville Press, Louisville. – Kentucky, 1952. – P. 55-67.
6. LaBarre W. The cultural basis of emotions and gestures // Journal ofcounceling personality. – 1948. – № 12. – P. 49-68.
7. Wundt W. The language of gestures. The Hague. – Mouton, 1973. – P. 47-59.
8. Johnson S. Japanese nonverbal communication. – Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1955. – P. 22-46.
9. Grigoriev S.A., Grigoriev N.V. Dictionary of Russian language gestures. – M., 2001. – 256 p.
10. Zhelezanova T.T. National specificity of non-verbal behavior of German media // Psycholinguistics and intercultural understanding: Abstracts of the X All-Union Symposium on psycholinguistics and communication theory. – M., 1991. – P. 107-108.
11. Kulish L.O. Nonverbal communication code of human // Psycholinguistics and intercultural understanding: Abstracts of the X All-Union Symposium on psycholinguistics and communication theory. – M., 1991. – P. 155-156.
12. Kreydlin G.E. Non-verbal semiotics in its relation to the verbal: Author. Dis. ... Dr. Philology. Sciences: 10.02.19. – M., 2000. – 60 s.
13. Senchenko S.V. Paralinguistic means of verbal communication // Problems of verbal communication. – Almaty, 1987. – P. 117-122.
14. Sapozhnikov S.K.: Zhestualitet: Semantic and phylogenetic aspect // The semantic-pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of language learning: Conference of young scientists and graduate students. – M., 1980. – S. 7.
15. Stolyarov М. Communication verbal and nonverbal means in the regulation of spontaneous dialogue // text as a unit of communication: Proceedings. – M., 1991. – S. 23.
16. Sternin I.A. Communicative behavior in the structure of national culture // Ethnocultural specificity of linguistic consciousness. – M., 2000. – S. 97-112.
17. Hall E.T. Proxemics // Current anthropology. – 1968. – № 9. – Р. 83-108.
18. A significant psychological dictionary / comp. and Society. Ed. B. Meshcheryakov, V.A. Zinchenko. – SPb .: EVROZNAK, 2005. – 672 p.
19. Reber А. Big explanatory psychological dictionary: 2 Vols – M.: Veche, AST, 2000. – T. 2. – 567 p.
20. Prokhorov A.M. Great Encyclopedic Dictionary. – M.: INFA-M, 1997. – 658 s.